PRK 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (210) comment rss

  • On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct

    PRK ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2012 @ 10:02am

    RIAA Funding

    It's the Internet, duh..... Close up shop, send the reported conclusions back to the RIAA.

  • On the post: DailyDirt: More Advanced Weapons

    PRK ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2012 @ 03:19am

    If only

    "? Pick your ammunition, any ammunition you want... for an automatic gun that can shoot hundreds of rounds per minute. The US Army hasn't perfected such a weapon just yet, but it's looking for proposals that could make more versatile guns possible. [url]"

    IF ONLY, they would try the same with charges and cables for phones and laptops, etc.

  • On the post: Toshiba: You Can't Have Repair Manuals Because They're Copyrighted And You're Too Dumb To Fix A Computer

    PRK ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2012 @ 03:36am

    dangerous laptops

    " I have also never heard of anybody else being injured by working on one."

    Not true. Thank God they have removed those cup holders. I was once seriously burned by a a laptop when I inadvertently clicked the clicker thing - the cup holder closed spilling my hot cup of McDonald's coffee.

  • On the post: UK Newspaper Licencing Agency Says Musicians Need To Pay To Quote Reviews

    PRK ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2012 @ 03:31am

    Re: 2xnegative = positive

    You've forgotten your math. If you cite a negative review negatively, then it is a positive and so you must pay.

    The only out is to publish a negative review positively - which is of course impossible because in the UK they have slander laws that would make your head spin.

  • On the post: UK Newspaper Licencing Agency Says Musicians Need To Pay To Quote Reviews

    PRK ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2012 @ 03:30am

    Re: 2xnegative = positive

    You've forgotten your math. If you cite a negative review negatively, then it is a positive and so you must pay.

    The only out is to publish a negative review positively - which is of course impossible because in the UK they have slander laws that would make your head spin.

  • On the post: UK Newspaper Licencing Agency Says Musicians Need To Pay To Quote Reviews

    PRK ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2012 @ 03:25am

    News May NOT be Shared!!

    Your comment reminds me of something I read in FT but I cannot share it with you because you might use it to make a profit!!!!!!!!!!

    Where does this stop?

    Old professors & employers demanding royalties for recommendation letters?

    Friends whose recommendation for a good movie you pass along must now be paid?

    When I was young I started conversations with "They say..." My father would demand to know who "they" were. If he were alive I would tell him that although I knew, my piddly allowance meant I could not afford to tell him.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Justices Worry About 'Parade Of Horribles' If They Agree You Don't Own What You Bought

    PRK ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2012 @ 05:06am

    More Refined Common Sense?

    Having read my comment, I wanted to expand upon the argument:

    Section 109 states: ?Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to??

    The wording of the statute is "lawfully made under this title". There are 2 arguments I can see:

    1. A copy made outside of the US is ?lawfully made under this title? if
    a. the original copyright existed in the US and the copy was lawfully made. The location of the duplication is unimportant to the analysis here because the Act merely reserves exclusive rights to the holder of the copyright. The fact that the US copyright holder consented to the duplication makes the copy lawful. The fact that the license was granted by the US copyright holder means it was lawfully made ?under this title?;
    b. there was no original copyright when the copy was made. It would seem in this case there was no way that the duplication could have been ?unlawful?. Since the Act merely proscribes acts in connection with US copyrights, the duplication was in fact ?lawful under this title?.

    2. Although a weaker argument IMO, history also supports the 1st sale in such cases. Back in the day there was no copyright unless it was registered prior to publication. That was abolished so that copyright applies automatically UPON publication. If that is the case then ANY work that is "published" in the US is in fact protected under "this Act" as of the date of publication. If the duplication was made lawfully ? under any of the 2 examples above ? then it seems that it was ?lawful under this title?.

    I really see an easy way out of this for the Court. They simply adopt the above and eliminate the issue completely. Since the copyright protection exists, so does the First Sale Doctrine.

    Again, am I missing something?

  • On the post: Supreme Court Justices Worry About 'Parade Of Horribles' If They Agree You Don't Own What You Bought

    PRK ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2012 @ 04:44am

    common sense

    The wording of the statute is "Made under this Act". Back in the day there was no copyright unless it was registered prior to publication. That was abolished so that copyright applies automatically UPON publication. If that is the case then ANY work that is "published" in the US is in fact protected under "this Act".

    I really see an easy way out of this for the Court. They simply adopt the above and eliminate the issue completely. Since the copyright protection exists, so does the First Sale Doctrine.

    Am I missing something?

  • On the post: Hollywood Wines & Dines Kiwi Politicians To Get Them To Support Hollywood's Copyright Insanity In TPP

    PRK ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2012 @ 03:37am

    Not so secret negotiations

    How is it that "Hollywood" knows about the NZ opposition (and thus by extension the US negotiating position) when the entire process is "secret" and releasing text to the (gasp) public would supposedly be so dangerous?

  • On the post: Cisco, Motorola, Netgear Team Up To Expose Wifi Patent Bully

    PRK ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2012 @ 03:32am

    class action correctness

    This is one area where it would be nice to see a class action attorney step up and file suit also. I would not care so much that any proceeds were shared amongst the class as much as caring that this troll be pounded without mercy into the sand. It would stand as a lesson to others.

    Next up: Patents reform..... a few ideas:

    a. Patents are not enforceable unless put into use directly by the inventor within five (5) years. Otherwise they are presumed to have been abandoned - just as with trademarks.

    b. Patent rights permit exclusive use for 4 years. This exclusive period starts on the EARLIER of: (a) issuance of the patent or (b) 1 year following the initial filing of the patent application.

    c. After the expiration of the 4th year, a compulsory license scheme is put into place (similar to copyright) with royalties to be set by agreement with either party able to seek arbitration. Once a license fee for a patent is set, the license fee may be reduced for future compulsory licenses but not increased.

    d. Obviousness test to be truly applied. If the PTO does not have the expertise they need to hire it.

    e. Presumption of validity is eliminated. Just because the PTO says something does not mean it is true.

  • On the post: Hollywood Wines & Dines Kiwi Politicians To Get Them To Support Hollywood's Copyright Insanity In TPP

    PRK ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2012 @ 03:16am

    Not so secret negotiations

    How is it that "Hollywood" knows about the NZ opposition (and thus by extension the US negotiating position) when the entire process is "secret" and releasing text to the (gasp) public would supposedly be so dangerous?

  • On the post: The USPTO's Reality Distortion Field: Web Filter Blocks Critics Like EFF, Welcomes Maximalist Lobbyists

    PRK ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2012 @ 11:51am

    Re:

    Eric, I am both glad you were the 1st comment and saddened by your response - unless I take it as tongue in cheek. I am absolutely shocked at this filter message. I personally do not care what the F the individuals in the USPTO think or do not think about their particular political or other views. I DO want them to have access (even if just in case there are a few enlightened souls). I cannot believe this does not become viral. It is absolutely shocking to the senses. It also explains a great deal about the disconnect between politics and reality.

  • On the post: Why The Internet Archive Says It Can Show You Every TV News Program

    PRK ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2012 @ 11:45am

    Internet does not mean NOT limited

    Internet access does NOT equal copies. Archive.org is making available ONLY those number of copies that have been actually accessed on that particular page.

    "Howard Baker of Tennessee introduced an amendment to the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act to give universities and archives the right to record news broadcasts off-air and to make a limited number of copies for research purposes. Following the enactment of the new law with this provision, CBS and Vanderbilt mutually withdrew from the lawsuit.

    But does that really make the Internet Archive legal? I'm not so sure the TV guys are going to see it that way. "

    Mike, you miss the forest for the trees. Just because the Internet is available to all does not equate to unlimited copies. Anyone in London can walk into any Library in London. There are over 15MILLION people here. Does that mean the libraries are making 15Million copies available? Of course not. Archive.org is making available ONLY those number of copies that have been actually accessed.

    If they are smart they will execute a cut-off after awhile or at least show that they have initiated a limit which has not been reached.

    Paul Keating

  • On the post: The Case For Copyright Reform: Techdirt Book Club

    PRK ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2012 @ 08:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Mike should say "this isn't a straight book, it's a listing of the political beliefs of someone running the Pirate Party."

    So every book must be announced with an announcement that it contains political or other subjective views of the author? For crying out loud, even Winnie The Pooh has a social message intended by the author. What are you afraid of, that your "purist" views might be challenged or that others might actually agree with the author?

  • On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating… Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites

    PRK ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2012 @ 11:15am

    Again you miss the point Mike,

    Look at the Quote.

    "...That means fewer artists on OUR rosters, fewer people who can make a living from music, fewer songs permeating through OUR culture that help form a piece of OUR national identity."

    the above so perfectly correct.....as long as you realize who the "our" refers to.....the industry of course.

  • On the post: Labatt Threatens To Sue Newspaper For Showing Photo of Suspected Killer Holding Its Beer

    PRK ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2012 @ 11:06am

    The LaBatt Protect the IP Image Act of 2012

    We obviously need a law prohibitting anyone with a criminal mind from associating with any known brand for fear that it will harm the entire inustry of North America.

    When asked for comment, Mr. LaBatt said "we are doing this for the children. Think of how they would otherwise suffer from not being able to enjoy a beer for fear of its association with violent criminals.."

    Reached in his cozy confines in Berlin, Mr. Magnotta said, "what's a LaBatt? I just used a stick and a knife...?

    News was also received indicating Facebook was considering action against LaBatt on the grounds that but for the LaBatt's beer, Magnott would not have seemed interesting enough to have his photo taken and included in Facebook and thus absent the beer, Facebook would not have had its valuable image and IP rights tarnished by the reference in the newspaper.

    :-)

  • On the post: The Case For Copyright Reform: Techdirt Book Club

    PRK ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2012 @ 10:42am

    How many people brought the copy as opposed to downloaded the free one?

  • On the post: Is It A Problem If People Only Discover A Musician Because They Have A Cool Kickstarter?

    PRK ( profile ), 26 May, 2012 @ 01:27pm

    All things pass

    As "modern" business models such as Kickstarter become seasoned the fact that anyone used them will become less and less significant. Sort of like thinking about AOL in terms of the millions of floppy disks and CDs it sent out or "you've got mail".

  • On the post: UK ISPs Are Already Planning To Offer Porn Filters — So Who Needs New Legislation?

    PRK ( profile ), 16 May, 2012 @ 04:00am

    UK ISPs already FILTER

    This is NON-NEWS.

    Most ISPs already have filters that are automatically applied. You have to call them to opt out (making you feel like a smut-lord).

  • On the post: Very Few Companies Fight Back Against Patriot Act Gag Orders

    PRK ( profile ), 16 May, 2012 @ 02:53am

    FBI not only Culprit

    The FBI is not alone. I represent domain name registrars and my clients frequently receive subpoenas - including Grand Jury Subpoenas. Here is a typical warning at the bottom of the most recent one.

    NOTE: DISCLOSURE OF THIS SUBOENA TO THE PARTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ABOVE-REFERNECED ACCOUNTS COULD SERIOUSLY IMPEDE AN ON-GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND IS PROHIBITED. PRUSUANT TO NRS172.245, A PERSON OR WITNESS SUBPOENAED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION TO THE GRAND JURY SHALL NOT DISCLOSE SAID EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION, NO SHALL SUCH PERSON OR WITNESS DISCLOSE THEIR KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING SAID GRAND JURY SUBPOENA WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

Next >>