If the restriction needs to be demolished, it should be done by Congress, or the Executive branch (FCC, maybe FTC), not the judiciary. It's not a huge privilege to have this restriction unless either the carrier or the phone producer have a monopoly. You have alternatives, if you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract. IMHO, the abusive part of the practice was carriers not unlocking phones once you'd met the contract terms, but I think that has been changed.
I think newspapers serve two other important functions. They give people a convenient place to find news, and they filter the information deluge. I think the second is more important; good editors / journalists find good stories; good editors / journalists explain why a fact matters.
Unfortunately for print media, there is no reason these functions cannot be just as effective in cyberspace.
Fortunately for editors / journalists, there is no reason these functions cannot be just as effective in cyberspace.
Much as I love the Economist, it feels like they've got the Wall Street Journal attitude. "We're so important, people will pay to read us online." If any media outlets could make that claim, The Economist, NYT, and WSJ could. But I don't think anyone can. People who already read them appreciate the archive / access, but others don't know what they are missing, or get their information from another source. Moreover, all the potential readers coming from external links are lost once the paywall kicks in.
I do not claim that this instance is a 4th amendment violation. I was responding to the "how copyright law can possibly survive a First Amendment challenge" point. The existence of fair use is not necessary to survive the challenge. The other amendments are not subordinate to the First.
I would argue that the Copyright Clause is the source of the fair use doctrine: "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." I think it also strengthens the claim that not having any copyright at all is a "taking".
I seriously doubt that the ruling could survive a challenge, since parody is a clearly recognized fair use. If they're using a substantial portion of the video, perhaps that might tip the scales in the plaintiff's favor.
The Bill of Rights also guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". Should the government be allowed to routinely seize something for public use just because the item is intangible? Arguably the lack of copyright would lead to just that.
USOC might be more clever than stupid. If they sue an organization that can't afford to defend itself, they get a slam-dunk win. No, they won't be able to collect anything, but they've established a legal precedent. That precedent could not only expand their "protection" of the Olympic marks, but also their "right" to treble damages. The next organization they rattle sabers at has an uphill battle.
The article also notes that "the board's stamp of approval is necessary for anyone in the world to sell a Warhol work," but that's the part that confuses me. Why?
From the article, it doesn't sound as if the board can block a sale. It's just that the work sells for much less if not authenticated.
The average price of a Warhol work at auction was $442,000 in 2006, according to the complaint. Shaer says the works "routinely fetch even more astronomical sums," noting that the 1963 "Green Car Crash," a single Warhol silkscreen, sold for $71.7 million.
Because Shaer declined the board's invitation, she says her piece has an effective market value of "zero."
Popular Mechanics posts a series of how-tos on popular website Instructables. (http://www.instructables.com/member/Popular+Mechanics/) I don't know about the rest of Hearst media, but PM at least is trying new ways of connecting to their (potential) audience.
So if the Fortune 10 company I work for files for a US patent for R&D work done in Germany and India, it is demonstrating American innovation?
We make about half of our revenues outside the US; we spend about half of our R&D budget outside the US; most of our patents are filed worldwide... It might be easier for CNN to tell the "USA vs the world" story, but in each of our businesses, the truth is it is "us vs the other 3-4 companies who are really good at this also."
And patents as an innovation indicator? Patents are for innovations you're willing to disclose. A lot of the real innovation is protected as a trade secret - business processes, manufacturing methods, even financing models.
So if the alleged Pirates want to countersue, and claim that the "private, industry-backed anti-piracy group FACT" engaged in criminal conduct (perhaps by making fraudulent claims to the police in the course of the "assistance"), can they get the police to seize FACT's computers?
It seems only fair, and there is a delightful irony in using the same tactics in reply. Perhaps Surfthechannel could use the BSA's tactics and offer a cash reward to former FACT employees to report illegal conduct ;-)
Dark Helmet - we Americans have a much more obscene variant of the law that allows the police to seize property alleged to be associated with criminal activity and sell it, keeping the proceeds. No criminal charges are filed, and the 'target' of the seizure is the property, not the owner, sidestepping many constitutional protections.
If I ran a newspaper's online archive, all pictures, video, and audio content that was removed would be replaced by a 404 page that said, "This content removed at the request of Major League Baseball. Please contact Mr. XYZ (email@example.com, (555) 555-1234) or your local team's publicity director with your comments and concerns.", followed by a table of the names, emails, and phone numbers for each club's PR flack.
If I were feeling cheeky, I'd include a link to Coralcdn's (http://www.coralcdn.org/ cached version of the page.
Nasty Old Geezer -
Gasp! It's worse than we feared. My library even has a device for making copies! They charge money to use it, so obviously they're making a profit from making copyrighted material available! Call the P(ublishing)IAA!
No, they're claiming a CD they gave a radio station or reviewer for free still belongs to them.Given that the radio stations often hand them out, it's not clear to me why they try to enforce it against the final seller and not the station.
The point isn't to prove PJ is a front. SCO may float that, but it's doubtful they really believe it. More likely, they hope to deposition her into bankruptcy. And if she gets pro bono support, well, there's always something embarassing to drag out of any witness. Let her serve as a warning to the next blogger with an opinion we don't like.
Um, read the article. The first part says he claims YouTube should do a better job of blocking copyrighted material, and the second says YouTube is believed to be in talks to pay for copyrighted material. Connect the dots. He's not necessarily saying giving content away is bad, but it sure looks like he wants better control over it, or is posturing for a better monetary deal. He can't extract more money from YouTube for content if YouTube drags their heels in preventing fans from uploading it for free.