Peter Blaise 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (81) comment rss

  • On the post: How Copyright Is Holding Back The Creative Class

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2008 @ 04:13am

    Copyright respects authorship and treats it as property

    Earlier: "...The government felt that there was a market failure, where not enough "content" would be produced without a limited monopoly, and thus, copyright was born...back in the day when creating content wasn't easy...You pretty much had to go through a professional process..."

    No, "back in the day" you pretty much had to be ROYALTY, not "professional", in order to reap any benefits from your authorship, thus copyright for authors was born.

    There have been authors galore throughout history, nothing has changed that. Copyright is about a society respecting authorship through it's constitution and laws, not "to provide an incentive for the creation of more content".

    Does nobody remember that the US Constitution was a document written by greedy bastards who didn't trust each other, were afraid each would become the next monarch, and so knew that the only way to prevent another monarchy was to respect the greed to the common man, was to ennoble the common man with property rights.

    The original draft of the Declaration of Independence went: live, liberty and pursuit of property.

    Not: there is a market failure, not enough "content" is being produced without a limited monopoly, and thus, we declare copyright.

    You're confusing copyright, which is respect for the property value of authorship, and licensing the bifurcation of the free public airwaves, which is distribution. If anything, the expansion of the free public airwaves to include instant and accurate digital copying and instant world wide distribution via the Internet, copyright is more at risk, not less.

    While I appreciate you incessantly suggesting that people who own intellectual property should just get over it and change their marketing paradigm and give it away and sell advertising, you've got it ass-backwards, copyright wise. You're suggesting weakened copyright (respect for authorship) as a way of respecting stronger distribution (broadcast, or copies), but if anyone else can copy and profit from my authorship and I no longer can reap royalties, what's my incentive? If anything, the Internet begs for stronger copyright to respect the ease with which copies can be made.

    Go ahead, copy and distribute my work, populate your copy-cat web pages with my authorship, but pay me. That's copyright, and it is needed stronger now more than ever.

    Earlier: "...when creations are restricted it is the creator who suffers more because his creation won't find its full and true public, its spark finds no kindling, and the fire dies..."

    Huh? On what planet have you been hiding? Have you not seen http://www.Flickr.com/ and http://www.Lulu.com/ and so on? People are publishing directly in drives. What "restriction" on creativity or communication are you thinking of? You're complaining about the restriction on COPYING, and there is no restriction on copying, unless you think actually paying the author for the content you copy is a restriction. Oh, that bothers you? And you don't want to create your own content because ...? You are your own worst enemy, argument wise. Nothing proves your points wrong as well as you do yourself:

    Earlier: "...let's assume that instead of a scarcity there is an abundance of talent and a limitless will to create but it has been tamped down by an educational system that insists on sameness; starved by a mass economic system that rewarded only a few giants; and discouraged by a critical system that anointed a closed, small creative class. Now talent of many descriptions and levels can express itself and grow. We want to create and we want to be generous with our creations. And we will get the attention we deserve..."

    .. and that attention is called respect for our authorship and respect for authorship is called copyright.

    I'm sorry and sad that you think you live in a world where there is a creative class and the rest of us are suppressed, but if there be anything like that, it's called the monopoly of the publishing world and the corporate (second class) citizen having enough money to persuade legal authorities to favor them instead of individual (fist class) citizens. That is the problem, and taking away copyright won't kill communication monopolies, it will only kill communication autonomies. I will never share another picture on the web again if I can't reap the benefits of my authorship, I will only sell them at local art fairs.

    Earlier: "... copyrights can be bought by the highest bidder..."

    No. Copyrights can be SOLD TO the highest bidder. The difference is in respect for the authorship of property, and that's where copyright protects the individual.

    Earlier: "... copyright law justifies the withholding of creative works to maintain the celebrity worship paradigm..."

    I must have missed the withholding part. What planet are you on? This is so wrong, I can't imagine what you are referring to, and what copyright has to do with whatever it is you are complaining about. Care to resend, with examples? Thanks.

    Earlier" ... humans were too stupid to revolt against their masters ..."

    Is this a religious reference, calling on the US to be religion free?

    Earlier: "... Copyright is not holding back the creative class. It may be holding back Neanderthals of the creative class who want to make money there from. Some of us do not worry. We create...."

    Can someone help me understand what a creative class is and where I may find it? Are we talking about the movie studios or YouTube?

  • On the post: Going For The Lunar X Prize? Want To Take Photos? NOAA May Require You To Get A License

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2008 @ 08:34am

    So much for free publicly owned airwaves, free speech (which photography is), free press, copyright, free trade, free enterprise ...

    If the FCC asked them to get a broadcast license to use the free public airwaves (NOT a permit, a license) to broadcast, that makes sense, I suppose, for anything broadcast over 1/4 watt, right?

    Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/15USCch82.html is based on Landsat, but seems open ended, calls their issue a license, not a permit, requires all data be made available to the Government (wow), demands flight path plans and such, 120 days prior notice, also demands national security not be compromised (wow again, that's a catch all!).

    Burocrats seem more intent on expanding their powers and usurping the powers of the people, rather than protecting the US Constitution (their only sworn duty) that in turn protects the people ... of the people, by the people, for the people.

    Yeah, right.

    PS - Regarding spil chick - please, everyone, use Firefox and or the Google-style toolbar for their in-built spell check, or edit off line and cut and paste. And, dear web designer, please allow us to later re-edit our own posts. Thanks.

  • On the post: Flat Stanley Learns How Ownership Of Infinite Goods Hurts Everyone

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2008 @ 07:04am

    Trademark the words

    Well, Dale, what did Tomi say when you asked permission to copy his drawing?

    Hello, Tomi Ungerer, where are you?

    http://www.exopuce.fr/tomi/

    Centre Tomi Ungerer
    4 rue de la Haute-Montée, 67000
    Strasbourg
    Tél. et Fax 03 88 32 31 54

    I suppose if Tomi allowed it to go into the public domain, then NOBODY owns it, and all can use it to their own satisfaction, and your The Literacy Community can rest knowing their investment is sacrosanct and indemnified against suit. However, exclusive use as a source identifier of a public domain image? I dunno?!?

    And yes, Trademark is a source identifier for a product or service. The following is for the WORDS only, NOT the drawing:

    FLAT STANLEY

    http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pge8hk.2.1

    Word Mark FLAT STANLEY
    Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: (Based on Intent to Use) Articles of clothing, namely, T-shirts, polo shirts, trousers, pullovers, jackets, waistcoats, raincoats, coats, hats, gloves, scarves, shoes and boots

    IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: (Based on Use in Commerce) association services, namely, promoting reading and literacy. FIRST USE: 19950000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950000
    Standard Characters Claimed
    Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
    Serial Number 77052642
    Filing Date November 29, 2006
    Current Filing Basis 1A;1B
    Original Filing Basis 1A;1B
    Published for Opposition January 15, 2008
    Owner (APPLICANT) Hubert, Dale INDIVIDUAL CANADA 64 Forward Avenue London CANADA N6H1B7
    Attorney of Record Peter Macrae Dillon
    Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2008 @ 11:54am

    Re: Anything less than 2 generation's lifetimes STINKS!

    Gotta love ya, Dan.

    Essentially, we agree over initial copyright, right?

    However, we disagree over duration, and the meaning of authorship to one's life's work and to one's life's earnings, the meaning of ownership regarding assignment, and the possible or speculative incentives for subsequent useful creativity.

    Other than that, we agree, right?

    However, I'm basing my argument on being a creator.

    You're basing your argument on speculation.

    I KNOW, as a creative artist, I'm disensentivised if my copyright is to be taken from me in my lifetime. Let me tell you that I am not less connected because of the passage of time with my writing, my songs, my pictures, from 50 years ago. In fact, I'm more connected than ever before with their importance in piecing together the jigsaw puzzle of my life, and presenting it to the world in a useful way. Don’t take my pride and joy, my personal resource away from me! You say I nave no incentive to create new stuff if I own my copyright for my life, but that's exactly the incentive I have to create - because I will own my creation for my entire life. And, I plan to retire on my creative investments, just as anyone else who works for a living plans to do in this country. It's just that, being self-employed, and having no employer's retirement plan otherwise, my copyright royalties are my only insurance against dying in poverty. Also, copyright royalties are my only way to provide continuity of support for those whom I promised to support - my family! Hey, this is my WORK. You want to nix the value of my work and the value of my retirement! Why? Why would you single out creative artists as the ones to disenfranchise from the value of their life's earnings? Sounds unconstitutionally discriminatory to me.

    You claim lifetime copyright is welfare, but you forget who's paying for copyright - the consumer who values my work, not the general taxpayer. If my work is valueless, I’ll get nothing. If my work has value, I get money. That's the plan. That's how society and I work together. I'm a part of society just as any consumer is, just as any other creative artist is, and just as any other productive worker is. Sounds fair to me to live in a society that's set up that way. You're suggesting that if my work has value as time wears on, I should not continue to get rewarded for my efforts. Why? It sounds as if you want people who do not create to get a free ride on my creativity. Why? That sounds exactly like a definition of "freeloader" that you so object to. I'm the hard working, creative one, NOT the freeloader. Why reward them and not me? Why GIVE my reward to them, and not me?

    You did not answer my point: are YOU a freeloader if you live in a house inherited from your parents? More importantly, is being a freeloader illegal? What about someone who wins the lottery? Isn’t that government incentive to be a freeloader? Where in the US Constitution doe sit say we the people empower the government to prevent freeloaderism? Actually, I see your desire to steal my copyrights as government created freeloaderism. Have you spoken to yourself lately?

    Anyway, why do I have to be the creative one TWICE in order to fulfill the US Constitution's imperative to "promote the progress of the useful arts? As the initial creative artist of useful copyright works, I've already done my part, and I'm trying to live off the benefits of selling valued copies of my creativity to an appreciative society. Why can't someone else be the creative one next? Why should they get to steal my creativity? GIVING them my work is no incentive for them to create, and it certainly disincentivises me form creating, too!

    Dan, the US Constitution is there to instruct the government on what they can and cannot do, not to instruct the populace. The government has "...to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries ..." You and I are arguing over how to influence policy makers to accomplish that, with constant growth considering society's developments. I do not think we are convincing each other to change our minds, however. Me? I can’t imagine giving some non-creative person unearned profits from my creativity. You? You think I should be disenfranchised and disconnected from the revenue stream of my own hard work. What was the word you used ... "ludicrous"? Yeah, that's the word. Got it. Now I have an example of what "ludicrous" means. Thank you.

    Derivative works are not blocked by me retaining ownership of my works. Anyone can ask and negotiate incorporating my work into their own new creative work. Nothing's stopping them from asking now, and nothing's wrong with me asking back that they share the wealth of the results of our combined creative efforts.

    Thanks again, Dan. Your persistence has helped me clarify for myself, if not for others, what makes sense to me as a creative artist in this society, copyright policy wise.

    So. Does anyone else have alternative ideas NOT discussed so far?

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2008 @ 06:06am

    Anything less than 2 generation's lifetimes STINKS!

    Great points, Dan. Thanks for hanging in there and helping to work out and clarify each other's points. Your energies are quite helpful in polishing points here.

    Firstly, I see that we're talking about different things. Yes, we disagree, but, on top of that, we're still talking about different things.

    Side track: All motorized vehicles fall under some rules identically, and yet each category has it's exceptions. A motorcycle rider in court probably can't get away with saying, "Your honor, the speed limit is for cars, and I'm not a car, so going 120 miles per hour on my motorcycle is okay for me." The speed limit applies to the road, not different motor vehicles differently (with exceptions for trucks in some places). But they can say in the inspection station, "The seatbelt requirement is for cars, and I'm not a car, so not having a seatbelt on my motorcycle is okay." Different categories of motor vehicles are treated differently.

    Same with the word "property" - all "property" has some commonalities, and each category has differences. Like "real" property, "intellectual" property can be bought and sold, but unlike "real" property, "intellectual" property has a limited time-frame of exclusive ownership by the author or the author's assignees. This is not up for grabs in this discussion, is it? Does anyone argue against that?

    I'm not saying intellectual property is exactly in every way like real property. I'm saying I'm all for a societal agreement that intellectual property be considered like real property in terms of the author or owner getting the benefit of it and being able to assign those benefits. I'm acknowledging that intellectual property is unlike real property in some ways, and so I'm all for a societal agreement to limit ownership to the author's and first assignee's lifetimes. You think it should be shorter than author's or assignee's lifetimes. Fine. We agree except in duration.

    I'm not sure how I respect intellectual property in the hands of a corporation, though. "Lifetime" seems an inappropriate reference here. Corporations should be second-class citizens, I believe. They already have Trademarks that can last beyond a lifetime, as do "private" citizens, I suppose, but Trademarks are supposed to be different than copyright, although Disney and Abba and authors and others are recognizing the perpetual nature of Trademarks and are trying to get their authored limited copyright works to be also covered under perpetual Trademark law. Hmm ... perhaps we need more-assertive Trademark examiners, or a Copyright law review?

    If Copyrights expired during my lifetime, I see that I'd be disinclined to invest in marketing my copyright property near the end of the term, knowing someone else could benefit from my efforts mores than I. That makes me go back to the US Constitution and re-center myself on what the intentions were.

    You suggest that "limited time" is important, but I see that is not the only phrase in the US Constitution. I see, "...to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries ..."

    So, I see the requirement for "limited time" already being satisfied by "lifetime", in comparison to previous "royalty" being all-time. I favor limiting authorship copyright to lifetime plus lifetime of first assignee, or the equivalent of a lifetime or less only for corporations. I think that fits well with the agreement in historical perspective.

    More importantly to me, I see "promote the useful arts". I do not feel promoted to an artistic life of sharing my "writings and discoveries", my authorship, my intellectual property, in any useful way if others will get the benefit and I don't. Specifically, if you take away my copyright, why should I create at all in the first place? We've all heard stories of destitute creative artists dying in poverty while others, especially corporations, continued to make a profit off those artist's works. Perhaps we need an intellectual property based pension where an author is entitled to a minimum of, say for example, 1% of the profits of their work regardless of "giving it away", perhaps like social security, where the ongoing sale of any copyright intellectual property would be taxed at least an additional 1% to provide a pension for registered artists. I know, I know, managing an accurate accounting might be a nightmare, but ASCAP and others manage these types of things and do it well enough. Why not think about the "promote" part of the US Constitution, and not the "limited time" part so much?

    I don't think we'll resolve who we each think are freeloaders. Do you consider yourself a freeloader if you inherit and live in your parent's house? Do you think anybody else aught to have the equivalent right to just move in and live in that house or rent it to others in spite of your parent's wishes that you continue to reap the benefit of their caring for you? Are you raising the challenge of "family values" where parents cannot express caretaking for their children, that families are declared legally defunct once any member becomes of age? Very provocative!

    So, Dan, I think we agree on respect for intellectual property in many of the same ways we consider real property, except for duration of exclusive rights. I do not think it is in the best interests of society, especially for creative authors in society, if we take the benefits of authorship away from them or their family (2 generations). You'd like to take the benefits of authorship away sooner. Ouch!

    ==

    Now, about copyrights and trademarks - they do not have to be "registered" with the government to have legal effect. Registration is just our society's way of acknowledging and supporting in advance the need to smooth the waters of commerce and promote the general welfare by reducing the need to sue each other. With a registration, we have a professional, court recognized witness, for a prima facie case of our copyrights and trademarks. Without registration, we have a steeper hill to climb in court of we want to sue someone for infringement, but we can, nonetheless. Regardless, though, we have copyrights and trademark rights without registration with the Copyright Office or the Trademark Office. Let's not confuse registration with rights. Registration has nothing to do with the rights themselves. Registration is only a facilitator when asking a court for assistance in obtaining relief against infringement. Nothing more. As a photographer, I have immediate copyrights in the capture of even the latent image, and has been that way, recognized by the US Supreme Court since the late 1800s.

    ==

    My point about going back in time if you want your own pictures of the past being ludicrous is exactly that. You can't go back in time, can you? So why steal my pictures from back then just because you didn't have the foresight to take your own pictures back then? Your incompetence at anticipating and satisfying your own intellectual property authorship is no excuse for raiding mine.

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2008 @ 04:02am

    Re: Stinks, and ...

    Well, we could have a side chat ... but I think it's central to the whole point of this blog/thread.

    I respect intellectual property as real property and as such believe it should not only be mine for a lifetime, but also has real inheritable value, and want to pass that value on to those I intended to take care of with my life's work.

    Freeloaders are those who want the value I created and do not want to pay me for it.

    The ludicrousness is in the mind of those who want the benefits of something they didn't create without paying for it. They seem to value my old creation, but, having not created their own value in the past, they want to steal mine. That is ludicrous, and they are the freeloaders by your own standards.

    In the end, we just disagree. You want people's creative efforts our there free, and I want creators to get the societal benefits of their creations just as any other worker gets, especially any other worker that creates value.

    If I build a building that takes in rent, I keep it for my lifetime and can pass it on.

    If I create a catalog of creative works that brings in royalties, why do you think freeloaders should have at it without compensating me?

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2008 @ 06:44am

    Copyright ONLY for paid distribution? NO WAY!

    Earlier: Perhaps the correct restriction is to simply eliminate some of the exclusive rights associated with copyright, by specifying that copying and distribution for which no money is charged or received (including by advertising) shall not be a copyright violation, ever.

    Reply: Too easy to abuse. If I wanted to bankrupt or dilute my competitor, I'd give away copies of their work.

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2008 @ 05:56am

    Re: Stinks, and, Copyright should be immediate - IT IS!

    Earlier: I suggest ardent historical study to respect continuity in respect for authorship and ownership.
    Reply: History doesn't support your position. The founding fathers put the stipulation "for limited times" in the Constitution because they understood the difference between real physical property and intellectual property.
    Follow up: We agree, sort of. I accept limiting the time to the life of the author and the first assignees, whichever is longer, not renewable after that.
    Historically, I'm referring to the revolutionary wars of the US and France that threw out "royalty" and "royalties" going only to "royalty", and respecting authorship as a form of property. The US Constitution wasn't written in a vacuum. It was written after a war.
    Moreover, to allow someone else to benefit from my property is against the whole point of the revolutionary wars, and against the resulting societal respect for personal property.
    I think that the premise in this whole thread is "when does one person's intellectual property become no longer theirs?" I suggest lifetime plus direct decedents who knew the author. So, if I had great grand children in my family and will, then they can maintain the benefits of inheriting the intellectual property I will to them. If I die childless, then have at it immediately upon my death! If I assign my copyright to a publisher, I suggest the same age restriction be applied, so they get to keep the assigned copyright as long as they live, but no one can extend the copyright beyond the age of the original recipient of the original assignment or the age of the original author.
    Complex? Sure. We can work it out. Basically, I propose that copyright benefits stay immediate, as it is now, (registration is optional, as it is now), but I propose that the duration be the lifetime of the author and or the lifetime of the first assignee, which ever is longer, and then become public domain and non re-assignable.
    Earlier: You want something that's old? Make it yourself in the past! Or, pay the original creator for it.
    Reply: Pointing out how your own argument is ludicrous is kind of self-defeating.
    Follow up: Huh? Your point? Anyway, I can reword it: You want something OF MINE that's old? Make it yourself in the past! Or, pay ME, the original creator, for it, REGARDLESS OF HOW OLD IT IS.
    Earlier: Copyright needs to be automatic
    Follow up: It is.
    Reply: If copyright is automatic, how do you know who to contact if you want to license something? Even more to the point, how do you determine if something is still under copyright. As things stand now, it can be nearly impossible to determine.
    Follow up: Don't use it if you can't find the author. Go innovate your own creativity. Quit complaining!

  • On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 24 Jul, 2008 @ 07:05am

    "Stinks!" - by a photographer

    Right, so I took photos of the World Trade Center under construction in 1971, archived them because no one cared after a while. Then, in 2001, I get nothing from someone else rediscovering my pictures more than 5 years later? They get to republish them at no benefit to me for all my efforts and ownership of my own intellectual property?

    Stinks! Use it or loose it indeed!

    How about respect for ownership? Let somebody else go back in time and shoot what I shot and see if they can get it free using their own time-machine. Otherwise, it's mine, and I want royalties regardless of how old my intellectual property is when someone wants it.

    Moneyed companies are already circumventing copyright by applying for Trademarks that last forever (but happen to be use-or-loose) - Disney, Abba, and so on.

    Is this a corporate take over attempt - the new feudal system, with top corporations as the new king, and all royalties go to royalty? This is what revolutions were fought over!

    Individual artists have no such resources to protect themselves against corporations without the intervention of our self-governance. I have a challenge paying a mere $35 per to register with the copyright office as many of my pictures as I can in one batch each year. I cannot afford to add to my costs $35 every single day per roll of film or per day's shoot. I do not want to have to go back and re-register 10,000 images (and the count is growing) every 5 years.

    And, if I have them in my on-line catalog or Flickr, is that "use"? If I have them on my share drive, open to the public (with watermarks against copying), is that "use"? Who defines "use" - must there be a cash transaction? If I no-charge an image for single use to a charity, is that use or not? Does that automatically extend the 5-year registration, or do I have to register every use to prove that re-registration is not required? Has anyone thought about this bone-head idea in detail?

    This is just a way for corporate raiders to not have to go out and take their own pictures (and other authorship), to not have to innovate. This is a way for corporate raiders to take other people's pictures (and other authorship). And books. And poems. And artwork, illustrations, music, lyrics ... without doing any creative innovative work on their own.

    This is just a way to stifle innovation, not reward it. It is just a way to permit non-innovative, non-creative people and corporations from profiting unfairly from the innovation and creative work of others.

    You want something that's old? Make it yourself in the past! Or, pay the original creator for it.

    Property is property. I think all property laws should have commonalities. You don't get my farmland just because I haven't farmed. Okay, I pay taxes on that land as part of our societal arrangement, so there are definitely differences for different types of property. Still, how we treat one type of property informs how we think of other types of property. The US revolution and French revolution were in part a declaration that "royalty" didn't own everything, and that individuals could own things, especially authors of their own works. I suggest ardent historical study to respect continuity in respect for authorship and ownership.

    ==

    Earlier: "... The song was incomplete without the sample ..."

    So? Write your own song! Innovate! ;-)

  • On the post: Is It Illegal To Announce A Patent On Something After That Patent Has Expired?

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 06 May, 2008 @ 09:04am

    I think they still own the patent, but the powers of the patent expire. So, it's accurate to say, for instance, "Pat. No. 485739854" and anyone looking that up will see the contents and note the expiration date, and then be able to use the contents of the patent without paying royalties. It's actually a SERVICE to list all patent numbers on the outside of a product where that patent is used inside the product as it gives everyone heightened access to what's inside. Also, this begs for others who do not own the patent to use the patent number on their products that incorporate the patent ideas, so "Pat. No. 23097275" just means what's inside, not that anyone owns anything or has "monopoly" rights. This is a good thing. Like ingredients on food packaging or automobile price tag listings. What's the problem? No one shut down their factory in fear because a competitor has a "Pat. No. 2435730475" on their product. They looked it up, just like we all can. Actually, they had their lawyers look it up. Good for everyone. The suing attorney is pursuing a hidden agenda, and is NOT representing me and my interests. Does anyone want to investigate and report on "...Washington DC patent attorney, Matthew Pequignot, filed at least two Section 292 lawsuits in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging false marking. These include Pequignot v. Solo Cup and Pequignot v. Gillette and P&G ..."

  • On the post: Font Company Can't Come Up With Good Business Model; Punishes Customers

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2008 @ 04:21am

    Re: In summary, returning to the point of the matter ...

    I told them what I think at

    http://www.letterheadfonts.com/contact/index2.php

    ==

    Re: Piracy

    I don't think people are upset that you take a stand against piracy. I think people are aghast that you inaccurately take an unsupportable public stand against non-pirates (your customers and potential customers) instead of accurately finding and prosecuting those who may have broken a law or a contract that involves you. Such investigation and prosecution cannot be done in a public forum. On the one hand, I applaud you for saluting and singing the praises of your typeface designers, and trying to provide a revenue stream for their effort. On the other hand, this publicity is not positive, and is fostering animosity against you and publicity for alternatives.

    ==

    I'll let you know if they respond.

    Someone here said: "... Someone made the comment that fonts are worthless and don't work, etc. That shows a profound ignorance of typography and the current state of the art ..." I hope that was not directed towards me. As a font designer, I know better, and I know that many "official", full price, legitimate fonts are crappy and need rebuilding to properly do their job in many, or even any, environment. Perhaps your comment was directed at the "hey, it's digital, give it away and sell advertising and support" philosophy, which, as a tech consultants, TechDirt is exampling quite well, since no one pays directly for reading this wonderful, participatory blog.

  • On the post: Font Company Can't Come Up With Good Business Model; Punishes Customers

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2008 @ 09:49am

    In summary, returning to the point of the matter ...

    Wow. A confluence of problems and miscommunication, compounded by a steep personality at the font company. Where to start, where to start ... ?

    "World's First $1,000 Font?" I don't think so! I remember the first commercial digital version of Rudi Ruzicka's Fairfield was $1,500, so this company's claim for the "first $1,000 font" is remarkably inaccurate, revealing that they don't even know their own industry history. I have also sold private, custom fonts for $2,000 and didn't think much of it (except that I didn't get paid adequately for my time, more like minimum wage!).

    Here's what I see. There are two worlds that will apparently never meet in friendship:

    - original creative artists

    versus

    - copyists.

    As a (self proclaimed) world-class font wizard and designer, I quickly saw the price of fonts fall from hundreds of dollars for off-the-shelf fonts, to $1 a font on licensed CDs from the big names, to 1/2 cent a font for clone knock-offs on CD, to ZERO over the Internet. And, what's worse is that expensive Adobe and Monotype versions still sucked and needed smoozing to work without error, only Bitstream (the first wholly digital foundry) fonts worked first time, every time. So, I had to re-digitize fonts from any source anyway to get them to work, often also needing to replace or add enhanced characters malformed or missing from the suite. So, why pay $40 or more for a single font face that I have to rebuild, when ZERO is the price of the competition (that also might need rebuilding anyway)?

    On the one hand, I applaud the mentioned font foundry for saluting and singing the praises of their typeface designers, and trying to provide a revenue stream for their effort.

    On the other hand, this publicity is not positive, and actually is fostering publicity for their competition. Doh!

    Personally, may I suggest a LEGITIMATE free alternative? I cannot think of a kinder, nicer, fairer, more considerate, person in the FREE font world than Glenn Folkvord, the Font Man at

    http://www.fontcollectors.com/

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fontpacks

    ... who says at http://fontcollectors.com/linkpiracy02.htm

    "... bandwidth theft and link piracy ... against people who can't be bothered to ask before they ... benefit from my work ... Obviously the fonts themselves are not mine but I spend a great deal of time ... the least I should expect is that people download as members from MY list/group ... the only real satisfaction I get ... is to see that the member count always grow, and ... know that ... people enjoy the fonts ... I welcome all new members and hope you will enjoy the fonts ... I don't want to come across as an self-important guy or blow the link theft out of proportions ... enough is enough and let's get back to collecting them there fonts, OK? ... P.S.: If you ever use a font for something, I urge you to buy a license from the font's creator. If your newsletter or website or company benefits from a designer's font, he or she should benefit too, it's the right thing ..."

    Very different attitude there, eh? Some people KNOW how to behave and run their organization with respect for everyone - you set a great example, Glenn. Thank you!

  • On the post: Internet Marketer Tries To Trademark 'SEO'

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2008 @ 06:50am

    It's all about the "SEO" already being used generically, not about whether or not anyone trusts SEO service providers.

    However, independent observers have called the USPTO a "snakepit", so don't expect much. On the patent side, it can take 9 years to produce results, and by then, the advantage of a patent may be null and void. On the trademark side, they even let Microsoft get the generic, descriptive term "windows" through to registration even though the term "windows" was in popular use throughout the computer software industry at the time for any multitasking software that showed more than one task on screen at a time.

    The purpose of the USPTO is to promote commerce by preventing court cases. It looks like they dropped the ball once again. This will see it's day in court if it goes through, and if they try to enforce exclusive rights. At least it's not tax payer's money they are wasting. The USPTO is fee-based, paid for by applicants.

  • On the post: Patent Office Rejects Blackboard E-Learning Patent One Month After It Wins Lawsuit

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2008 @ 10:15am

    Judge wait for the US Patent Office ... for up to

    Since the US Patent Office routinely is reported as having a 9-year pendancy or longer, I can't imagine claimants in court waiting for justice delayed, justice denied.

  • On the post: Will The Freemium Model Work For Photoshop?

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2008 @ 09:39am

    Photoshop Express

    This is NOT Photoshop in any way. It's slow and incomplete and handles JPG only. JPG is an output format only, not suitable for subsequent tweaking. Free Google Picasa (download) handles any RAW or TIF (capture and storage formats) I throw at it.

    Adobe is just trying to compete on-line with other on-like "image tweakers". It requires dancing baloney enabled browser, is arduously slow, did not seem to have a fine or predictable level of control over adjustments being on or off or cancelable or implemented with other features, and they offered no dialog feedback, only a form asking which features you loved. How arrogant! I will never revisit Photoshop Express.

  • On the post: Court Notes That Empty 'The Office'-Style Workplace Concepts Not Subject To Copyright

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2008 @ 04:47am

    Re: The Best Part:

    No, you cannot take Elton John's music and lyrics and just make the sound different and get away with it, without copyright violation.

    But you can take the underlying ideas - love, suffering, joy, rhythm, percussion, and so on - and write your own vapid songs.

  • On the post: Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2008 @ 04:52am

    eepybird.com dancing baloney lost me

    At http://www.eepybird.com/dcm1.html I get 2 red [x]s and now I'm glad my browser is "broken" and no longer shows me dancing baloney. I see in the source code for the page that it says "You may need to upgrade your Flash Player or click the security box at the top of the page to activate this content." I have neither a Flash player nor a security box - hahahah. Maybe I'll keep my browser this way just to make web browsing sooo much easier and noise free! I do use filters from Smith Micro Check It 86, interMute Ad Subtract Pro, and the Google Toolbar Popup Blocker (all three together) on ancient IE 6.0(!), so my web browsing is now pretty much dancing baloney free! I guess I'm a preternaturally proto-original purist when it comes to the philosophy of "content is everything", to paraphrase your headline, since advertising is non-existent for me, unless it's content. Tah-dah - I have the perfect (broken) browser that fulfils your observation regardless of the advertiser's intent - all I have is content! ;-)

    Also, I don't need Coke as a refreshing drink nor as an entertaining explosive. I guess your "good/bad" is in the eye of the beholder, as always, but I have no reason to ever return to eepybird.com - they lost me at "hello".

    Finally, thanks, tony, for the term "iADD" - new to me. But, I do have it, and I have it honed to a fine weapon. Years ago, I used to count to 10 before nixing a bADD web page, and now I hardly get to 3 before moving on. As Carl Sagan said, there's "billions and billions of start stuff" out there, so I figure, why not immediately move on to continue the search for someone who is ready for prime time, instead of waiting for someone to s-l-o-w-l-y slice the dancing baloney?

    My dancing baloney has a first name,
    it's C L O S E
    My dancing baloney has a last name,
    it's W I N D O W ...

    Click!
    Love and hugs,
    Peter Blaise

  • On the post: Oh No! People Might Watch Porn In Hotel Rooms! Oh, The Horror!

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2006 @ 05:31am

    .

    I didn't know you could get porn in hotel rooms - thanks for the info!

    .

  • On the post: Wiki Demonstrates How Yellow Pages Are Obsolete — Gets Sued For Its Efforts

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2006 @ 04:21am

    "Yellow" is descriptive and cannot be trademarked

    "Yellow" is descriptive and cannot be trademarked ... as there is no other way to describe the pages that are, well, yellow. As such , it's generic and cannot be "owned" by one person since that would prevent others from even being able to describe their own "yellow" products. What, can no one else in the world have "yellow" pages? Quick, grab the rest of the color names, then aside from the few dozen people who own the color names, no one else can print ANYTHING!

    No, as stated, the whole point of LEGAL support for "trademarks" - marks in trade - it to support commerce, not criple it! It's the "Yell brand of Yellow Pages" or some such, just as it's the "Band-Aid brand of adhesive bandages" or "Kleenex brand of facial tissue".

    I sincerely hope that no stoopid judge (redundant?) who knows so little of commerce precedent (the trademark office is NOT a bunch of entry-level clerks but is a bunch of high level lawyers who practive law with every application they process every day!) lets YEll OWN the color YELLOW the way they let Microsoft OWN the descriptive and well used name "Windows" - which should be recinded and it's registration should be thrown out.

    However, the Windows sham shows how sometimes the big guy gets served and the little guy gets squashed. Let's hope we win here and "yellow" remains in the puclic domain for us all to use. Yahoo has "Yahoo Yellow Pages" at http://www.yahoo.com/r/yp so SOME PEOPLE understand branding and NOT depending on generic terms for their identity!

    Hello, Yell, GET A CLUE! You've chosen a generic term and cannot expect to own it and prevent the world from using the term "yellow".

  • On the post: Verizon Discovers The Cost Of Being Too Aggressive In Blocking Spam

    Peter Blaise ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2006 @ 03:01pm

    Everyone wants to play Monopoly and be the next Mi

    .

    The problem was monopoly practices - Verizon using the power of their multiple communication services to force their customers to use Verizon's more expensive phone lines instead of their already paid for, less expensive Verizon email. Ever try to attach a photo or PDF to a phone call, or cc: multiple recipients in a phone call? What a hoax, Verizon, nice spin on why they shut off cheap "long distance" emails in favor of comparatively expensive phone calls! Hahahahah. I almost believe them. Almost.

Next >>