Wyrm’s Techdirt Profile

wyrm

About Wyrm




Wyrm’s Comments comment rss

  • May 17th, 2018 @ 10:05am

    Re: Eternal Copyright

    Actually, I don't agree with "end with the author's death".

    When you want to sell or license the exclusivity to a work, the buyer will want a period he can plan on. If you say that the exclusivity might expire on the very day the contract is signed (accident, murder, etc.), the contract will have a very random value. The publisher might not like that.

    Instead, make it a set duration. Registration (to keep track of both the author and the date of creation, also keeping current beneficiary) for a minimal fee (a fee low enough to not be a barrier of entry something like $1), possibly short times renewable a few times. 5 years renewable twice, or ten years renewable once, that kind of duration would be ok since I've read somewhere that a close-to-optimal copyright duration is 15 years.

    Not a lifetime (you want to encourage creation? don't provide a lifetime revenue to craetors).
    No expiration on death (to keep exclusivity deal worth the paper they were signed on).

    Then, it's the author's responsibility to save his revenues and/or create more work as with any other job.

  • May 15th, 2018 @ 9:34am

    (untitled comment)

    Also, "use markdown" should be default. :\

  • May 15th, 2018 @ 9:33am

    (untitled comment)

    **Because Of** Its Problems, More Consumers Should Behave Like Beer Drinkers To Keep Trademark At Bay

    There, FTFY

  • May 4th, 2018 @ 2:30pm

    Biased by design

    This kind of survey is flawed from the questions and the answers.

    The idea is not so much "what do you think about this?" than it is "please give us reasons to censor you".

    Biased questions, multiple choice answers that lack either neutral or downright opposite answers to what they expect, baseless restrictions on answers... not to mention the super-obvious mixed-bag of "crimes" that serve as the basis for the survey.

    Anyone trying to answer will one way or another "support" censorship.

  • May 2nd, 2018 @ 2:19pm

    (untitled comment)

    We do not believe a reasonable person would be justified, in the eyes of the community, of being seriously offended and aggrieved by the statements at issue.

    And Loftis was offended and aggrieved... That says a lot about what the court thinks of him. And probably his lawyer too. :D

  • Apr 30th, 2018 @ 5:03pm

    (untitled comment)

    Once again, this is the result of "everything must have an owner" mentality.

    It has already reduced the copyright public domain to mere leftovers. (ie. whatever copyright holders failed to lobby into perpetual copyright.)
    It created absurd lawsuits about a monkey selfie.
    It leads to patent trolling operations that are increasingly difficult and costly to defend against.
    And I could on all day long.

    All in the name of the One True God of America.
    The Almighty Dollar.

    "Incentive to creation" is the excuse to every one of these bad ideas, and none of those "wise" ("wise" as in "wise guy") lawmakers will take just to few minutes to check 1. that this will actually be an effective incentive and 2. that the cost to society will not be worse than the benefit. (Nor the added bonus inherent to every law: 3. how it will be abused.)

  • Apr 23rd, 2018 @ 12:05pm

    (untitled comment)

    The terms “children,” “grandchildren,” “legitimate,” “widow,” and “widower” all imply humanity and necessarily exclude animals that do not marry and do not have heirs entitled to property by law.

    Although I do agree that the Copyright Act only covers human works, this specific argument feels wrong on many levels.

    First, does that mean single humans who never marry nor have children cannot benefit from copyright?

    Second, even if they don't marry, animals do have children and grandchildren, whether they acknowledge that relationship or not.

    The point should be made based on the fundamental of copyright, not on nit-picking a few words in its implementation.

  • Jan 2nd, 2018 @ 4:19pm

    Re: We need to extend copyright

    Time travelers have a way to optimize that. They create something at any time, then travel to the future to die on the very last day of humanity. (Or even 50 years before that.)

    That's how you get eternal copyright when you can time-travel.

  • Dec 26th, 2017 @ 9:58am

    old problem

    That's a question so old it was already formulated in the Antiquity.
    "Who watches the watchers?"
    Seems like our modern governments decided the answer is "nobody".

  • Nov 13th, 2017 @ 12:46pm

    Re: Trying to silence a critic is one thing...

    Not to mention the issue with the grandfather paradox.
    If the blogger complies and removes the post before the 24th, then the lawyer doesn't have a reason to send his C&D on the 25th, so the blogger has no reason to remove the post... You get the point.

  • Nov 4th, 2017 @ 1:21pm

    Re: State what police and prosecutors did WRONG here.

    And why are **you** wrong?

    - the FBI didn't just passively "record IP addresses" as other websites do, they sent a malware to other people's computer for that purpose.

    - you're assuming what we're assuming, that the cops must obtain warrant for an unknown place. What we're saying is that the cops must follow the procedure because that's what respect and trust for the law hinges on. If they can't apply for a federal warrant, they must apply for 50 state warrants. If that's too much paperwork for them, I'm a little worried about their resources.

    - finally, we hear a lot about evidence accepted under a "good faith" exception... that doesn't really exist. That allows the cops to basically do anything as long as they pretend they didn't know better.
    I could - at the very most - understand this as a way for a cop (or fed, or whatever) out of being sued, but allowing evidence based on invalid warrant (or none at all in some cases) is basically making law enforcement completely lawless. That's the opposite of a country based on the rule of law. Accepting this is equivalent to allow for arbitrary arrests.

  • Oct 31st, 2017 @ 7:55pm

    virtual? reality?

    Apparently, teenagers are more skilled at distinguishing reality from imagination than adults with a law degree.

  • Oct 27th, 2017 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Hats off... more money for nothing

    Trusting the facts to match your usual anti-relation rant... Funny, but as well as usual.

    The government here didn't "give the power" to Verizon to scam their customers. The government here removed himself from preventing that.

    So *you* got exactly what you asked for - less regulation - and Verizon magically became honest and ethical... not.

    Hence, that's not "with our blessings" since that's the exact opposite of what citizens asked.

    You keep pointing at "regulation" being the problem when "systemic corruption" is.

    And I'm pretty sure that, should we remind you that monopoly and abuse of monopolistic position are the obvious direction things would take, you'd mention that antitrust laws are all we need, defeating your own argument that we need no regulation at all.

    That's funny at times, but a little repetitive overall.

  • Oct 26th, 2017 @ 7:36pm

    whitewashing

    Also note the other change:
    Redefining anything they obtained from another agency as "not collection".
    Easy way out of any accusation of "correcting too much data": "we didn't collect it, was graciously handed to us by a friend."

    But seriously, how much can they stretch definitions when "homegrown" becomes included in "foreign"?

    At this stage, like another commenter stated it above, there might still be rules to private data connection, but you can basically assume there are none from a normal person's point of view.

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 2:14pm

    Pre-emptive attack

    If companies try to - so obviously - circumvent the IPR process, the PTO has an equivalent - and more obvious - reply available to them: stop granting patents, at least not so easily.
    If patent granting takes much longer and fails more often, companies might reconsider using such dubious tactics.
    They can start with more thorough evaluation of patents requests coming from companies that have already demonstrated this kind of behavior (Allergan, SRC) in the hope of just discouraging others.
    If that doesn't work, then let this be the default behavior.

    Of course, all this assumes the PTO is interested in solving the problem.

  • Oct 6th, 2017 @ 7:19pm

    Forfeiture should be like RICO.

    And yes, it's never RICO, for a good reason, and forfeiture should be subjected to similar standards.

    Basically, forfeiture was created to deprive criminals from the proceeds of their activity when you couldn't indict the criminal himself. (Think about contraband shipped through containers. The owner is abroad so you can't get to him.)

    In recent days, it's just a lazy way to legally steal money. If the purpose was really proper law enforcement, well, you have your criminal right there since you're literally taking his property from his hands. If you really have strong evidence that he's a criminal, you could arrest him there and then, then build your case and indict him legitimately.

    What should have been an exception became the norm, and it will only get better if judges step up and decline to rubber stamp these illegitimate forfeitures. Or if lawmakers decide to explicitly raise the standards LEOs have to meet in forfeiture cases (including attaching a forfeiture to actual charges). Preferably both.

  • Oct 5th, 2017 @ 9:29am

    Re: Techdirt often does this in less than 15 minutes on MY comments!

    I'm a little late on this one, but here's your complimentary xkcd:
    https://xkcd.com/1357/

  • Sep 13th, 2017 @ 1:09pm

    Summary...

    So let's sum this up
    - two guys *might* have met up, *probably* to discuss drug dealing.
    - they texted each other about buying food at Costco.
    - they *might* have met again at Costco.
    - they did meet again, *probably* starting 15 minutes before the cops saw them, and *probably* exchanging drugs during these 15 minutes the cops didn't witness.

    Based on all that evidence they didn't have, and their imagination about what happened, the cops decided to perform a warrantless search, and a majority of judges agree with them.

    There already were secret evidence presented to secret courts to uphold secret laws, now we're moving to imaginary evidence and testimony?

  • Aug 21st, 2017 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    What you say would apply just as much to Hitler.
    How do we remember him without statues everywhere to remind us of the horrors of Nazism?
    Then again, it seems some people don't, seeing the kind of flags that were on display during the Charlottesville protest.
    (Unless those swastika flags, salutes and chants of "blood and soil" we're just a friendly historical reminder on their part? Does Poe's law apply IRL? /s)

  • Aug 5th, 2017 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Ugh...

    Regarding you comparison with hiring a hitman, this is a backwards comparison.

    In the case of A hiring B to kill C, A actually has the intent to kill a specific target. The intermediary B would do the actual murder, but A provided the intent first.

    In the case of A creating a malware that B then buys to infect C's computer, B had the intent, and B is the one to execute the task. A here doesn't have intent, nor does he acts against C's computer. He only created a general tool that might be used for nefarious purposes, or for research, or then again for legal investigation...

    There is no valid comparison here.

More comments from Wyrm >>