I propose a very simple rule (one that patent maximalists would cringe at and cry horror over):
*** If any key part of a patent requires the use of software, then such patents are should be deemed as ineligible for patent protection. ***
Some may say that this may cause many current patents to become invalid, but I do not see this as a bad thing (and I would assume you would also not necessarily see this as bad either).
Such a broad and hard rule against including any type of software component within any key component of a patent would prevent such patents from ever existing, and thus protect software developers from ridiculous patent lawsuits that should have never existed in the first place.
Proposal #4 is good. Many of us libertarians have wanted to repeal the 16th Amendment and pass in its place the FairTax Act of 2005. It is "progressive" enough to have a poverty-level prebate to assist those below the poverty level.
However, I highly doubt that most sane economists agree in support of Proposal #5. Taxing our current life blood (fossil fuels) with no reasonable alternative currently in place slows down economies, causes prices for everything to rise (as logistics requires fuel to transport goods manufacturer to reseller), and makes less money available for buying goods and services in general considering how much we use on a daily basis.
I just wanted to point out that the Everything Data Plan assumes just using the phone as the only device making use of the cellular data connection.
The 5 GB limit is for any type of tethering option (including having your phone act as a WiFi hotspot). I personally do not like those restrictions, but at least I can still use my Android phone straight-up without worrying about data overages on Sprint.
Mike Masnick, let us assume we go back in time before Facebook and the Internet to look at an analogue for what Facebook could represent: hand-written letters.
Now do you think it would be reasonable for an employer to demand to review original copies of hand-written PRIVATE letters between you and your spouse, your family, your friends, etc. which may include very personal conversations that may include discussions of a medical nature, sexually intimate nature, heated debates on controversial topics, and a whole host of other PRIVATE discussions that are quite frankly NONE OF THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS.
The libertarian in me hesitates to call for any law (federal or state) to limit what employers can do with their business, but THIS horse squeeze that these businesses who interview like this creates true HARM to others (either give up your privacy or not get hired) that such behavior is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, for which a civil law must be made to punish businesses who are insane and asinine enough to ask for my Facebook credentials.
This could seriously come back to bite her if she does not drop them. In this politically charged environment, that last thing she needs to be associated with (out of ignorance) is crony capitalism and fascism (by having their main sponsor support SOPA and PIPA).
P.S.: Rich, to each his own, but I would have to say that you may be dead below the waist. :P
You have put together a lot of individual articles that stated which companies, organizations, and Congress critters support or oppose SOPA and PIPA as a running process as the info rolled in about them.
I think it would be good to write a summary update article listing off what we currently know as the supporters and opposers, with special notation of those who have changed sides (whether going from supporting to opposing or vice versa).
I love the work that you do, but honestly, any time you list politicians, it seems that you are scared to list their political party.
While you may prefer to come across as non-partisan, the politicians' political affiliations are matters of fact and should be reported any time you list them. It is especially helpful in this case to demonstrate that not only is the support for SOPA and PIPA bipartisan but so is the opposition.
Also, it is possible to remove these people in the upcoming primaries for those up for re-election this year so that the parties in their local districts can actually boot out those copyright fascists and put up a more worthy candidates in the general elections.
Case in point: you have radio talk show host Erick Erickson who is a self-identified conservative is starting a campaign to unseat Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in the upcoming primaries.
He should have stated that the only way to win back his trust would be to fire those involved in suggesting to the CEO support of PIPA/SOPA and fire those above said executive all the way up to the top, replacing them with executives that not only know how to run a online business but also don't support the copyright fascism proposals like PIPA and SOPA.
If you could cut out the cancer in your company via "organ transplant", then I would maybe consider trusting you again.
Copyright infringement is *not* the same thing as actual theft or *real* property.
The only reason people who incorrectly believe that copying is the same thing as stealing is due to their sense of *entitlement* for getting paid for something that is rather debatable whether or not someone should be paid at every instance.
Copyright was never meant to be a welfare check to both successful individuals (musicians, songwriters, authors of literature, graphic artists, etc.) and big corporations (e.g., Disney, who has done everything in its power to lobby Congress to keep poor old Mickey Mouse out of the public domain by increasing the term limits for copyrights to an asinine "lifetime of author + 95 years").
Public domain is the rule; copyright is the exception. This axiom needs to be kept in mind when determining if copyright laws have gone too far in scope with draconian restrictions and penalties. Copyright does *not* give the author of a work *absolute* control over how their work is referenced, alluded to, used, etc.
SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate do *nothing* to "fix" the alleged problems of piracy of copyrighted works. Instead, it is an attempt to skirt 1st Amendment and 4th Amendment protections in order to have more swift and unaccountable actions taken not only by government but by private individuals and businesses in attempts to curb piracy.
"But, for whatever reason -- psychology, economic ignorance, etc, -- many people react poorly to this, claiming that it's a moral problem."
The above comes from a sense of entitlement. Whether it be content creators, middleman managers/labels, writers, etc. all feel a certain sense of entitlement when it comes to what they believe they are owed for their work. Anything that threatens their maximum amount of what they believe they are entitled to receive in payment for their creative works makes them inaccurately label such an action as "stealing" (i.e., "You are 'taking away my money' that you owe me by not paying me for my creative service!").
This sense of entitlement does not work well with virtual / infinite goods as such goods are indeed the basis of non-zero-sum markets as the creative markets do exist within.
This is really no different than how the Democrat leaders in the US Congress ignored their constituents and forced the ObamaCare bill through both houses. Then again, there will never be enough people to stand up and force the hand of these unelected officials to cease and desist negotiations on ACTA.
It is obvious the most people do not want this pass and realize that they are better off without this passed; however, it's clear they only care about being the puppets of Big Media to enact a fascist global regime to punish people for violating inane and insane restrictions on non-existent "intellectual property".
Elections have consequences. A majority of idiots have voted Obama into power, and despite what people thought of his hip, techno-age persona, he's just as clueless about "intellectual property" issues as most any other politician.
Ars had an article detailing the circumstances surrounding the aftermath of the lawsuit, and now the municipal network will be delayed for several months more while TDS has the opportunity to "compete" with the government network.
"In Mitchell's view, this was the only point of the lawsuit; even in defeat, Bridgewater has tied the project up for six months and delayed it into next year. TDS, for its part, insists to us that it simply wanted to protect taxpayers from covering an expensive system that TDS itself could operate more efficiently."
underestimating how easy it can be to invalidate software patents
Mike,
I propose a very simple rule (one that patent maximalists would cringe at and cry horror over):
*** If any key part of a patent requires the use of software, then such patents are should be deemed as ineligible for patent protection. ***
Some may say that this may cause many current patents to become invalid, but I do not see this as a bad thing (and I would assume you would also not necessarily see this as bad either).
Such a broad and hard rule against including any type of software component within any key component of a patent would prevent such patents from ever existing, and thus protect software developers from ridiculous patent lawsuits that should have never existed in the first place.
regarding 2 of the proposals
Proposal #4 is good. Many of us libertarians have wanted to repeal the 16th Amendment and pass in its place the FairTax Act of 2005. It is "progressive" enough to have a poverty-level prebate to assist those below the poverty level.
However, I highly doubt that most sane economists agree in support of Proposal #5. Taxing our current life blood (fossil fuels) with no reasonable alternative currently in place slows down economies, causes prices for everything to rise (as logistics requires fuel to transport goods manufacturer to reseller), and makes less money available for buying goods and services in general considering how much we use on a daily basis.
tethering vs. untethered
Mike,
I just wanted to point out that the Everything Data Plan assumes just using the phone as the only device making use of the cellular data connection.
The 5 GB limit is for any type of tethering option (including having your phone act as a WiFi hotspot). I personally do not like those restrictions, but at least I can still use my Android phone straight-up without worrying about data overages on Sprint.
Team Sisyphus!
Take a look at the T-shirt pic in the following Ars article:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/slow-learner-mpaa-chief-hints-at-talks-to-revive-sopa.ars
Hilariously apropos!
insane and asinine interview requirement
Mike Masnick, let us assume we go back in time before Facebook and the Internet to look at an analogue for what Facebook could represent: hand-written letters.
Now do you think it would be reasonable for an employer to demand to review original copies of hand-written PRIVATE letters between you and your spouse, your family, your friends, etc. which may include very personal conversations that may include discussions of a medical nature, sexually intimate nature, heated debates on controversial topics, and a whole host of other PRIVATE discussions that are quite frankly NONE OF THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS.
The libertarian in me hesitates to call for any law (federal or state) to limit what employers can do with their business, but THIS horse squeeze that these businesses who interview like this creates true HARM to others (either give up your privacy or not get hired) that such behavior is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, for which a civil law must be made to punish businesses who are insane and asinine enough to ask for my Facebook credentials.
1 year later
In honor of Pi Day one year later, what is the update on this bogus copyright claim in court?
maybe it is time for Danica Patrick to drop GoDaddy as her racing sponsor
This could seriously come back to bite her if she does not drop them. In this politically charged environment, that last thing she needs to be associated with (out of ignorance) is crony capitalism and fascism (by having their main sponsor support SOPA and PIPA).
P.S.: Rich, to each his own, but I would have to say that you may be dead below the waist. :P
updated list of supporters and opposers to SOPA and PIPA
Mike,
You have put together a lot of individual articles that stated which companies, organizations, and Congress critters support or oppose SOPA and PIPA as a running process as the info rolled in about them.
I think it would be good to write a summary update article listing off what we currently know as the supporters and opposers, with special notation of those who have changed sides (whether going from supporting to opposing or vice versa).
to Mike Masnick
I love the work that you do, but honestly, any time you list politicians, it seems that you are scared to list their political party.
While you may prefer to come across as non-partisan, the politicians' political affiliations are matters of fact and should be reported any time you list them. It is especially helpful in this case to demonstrate that not only is the support for SOPA and PIPA bipartisan but so is the opposition.
Also, it is possible to remove these people in the upcoming primaries for those up for re-election this year so that the parties in their local districts can actually boot out those copyright fascists and put up a more worthy candidates in the general elections.
Case in point: you have radio talk show host Erick Erickson who is a self-identified conservative is starting a campaign to unseat Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in the upcoming primaries.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/sopa-faces-growing-opposition-among-conservatives.ars
how Chris Heald should have responded
He should have stated that the only way to win back his trust would be to fire those involved in suggesting to the CEO support of PIPA/SOPA and fire those above said executive all the way up to the top, replacing them with executives that not only know how to run a online business but also don't support the copyright fascism proposals like PIPA and SOPA.
If you could cut out the cancer in your company via "organ transplant", then I would maybe consider trusting you again.
copying != stealing
Copyright infringement is *not* the same thing as actual theft or *real* property.
The only reason people who incorrectly believe that copying is the same thing as stealing is due to their sense of *entitlement* for getting paid for something that is rather debatable whether or not someone should be paid at every instance.
Copyright was never meant to be a welfare check to both successful individuals (musicians, songwriters, authors of literature, graphic artists, etc.) and big corporations (e.g., Disney, who has done everything in its power to lobby Congress to keep poor old Mickey Mouse out of the public domain by increasing the term limits for copyrights to an asinine "lifetime of author + 95 years").
Public domain is the rule; copyright is the exception. This axiom needs to be kept in mind when determining if copyright laws have gone too far in scope with draconian restrictions and penalties. Copyright does *not* give the author of a work *absolute* control over how their work is referenced, alluded to, used, etc.
SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate do *nothing* to "fix" the alleged problems of piracy of copyrighted works. Instead, it is an attempt to skirt 1st Amendment and 4th Amendment protections in order to have more swift and unaccountable actions taken not only by government but by private individuals and businesses in attempts to curb piracy.
great article
Mike,
I would say that regarding your statement:
"But, for whatever reason -- psychology, economic ignorance, etc, -- many people react poorly to this, claiming that it's a moral problem."
The above comes from a sense of entitlement. Whether it be content creators, middleman managers/labels, writers, etc. all feel a certain sense of entitlement when it comes to what they believe they are owed for their work. Anything that threatens their maximum amount of what they believe they are entitled to receive in payment for their creative works makes them inaccurately label such an action as "stealing" (i.e., "You are 'taking away my money' that you owe me by not paying me for my creative service!").
This sense of entitlement does not work well with virtual / infinite goods as such goods are indeed the basis of non-zero-sum markets as the creative markets do exist within.
same tactics used to pass ObamaCare
This is really no different than how the Democrat leaders in the US Congress ignored their constituents and forced the ObamaCare bill through both houses. Then again, there will never be enough people to stand up and force the hand of these unelected officials to cease and desist negotiations on ACTA.
It is obvious the most people do not want this pass and realize that they are better off without this passed; however, it's clear they only care about being the puppets of Big Media to enact a fascist global regime to punish people for violating inane and insane restrictions on non-existent "intellectual property".
Elections have consequences. A majority of idiots have voted Obama into power, and despite what people thought of his hip, techno-age persona, he's just as clueless about "intellectual property" issues as most any other politician.
Enjoy your pie.
Even when they lost, they still won
Ars had an article detailing the circumstances surrounding the aftermath of the lawsuit, and now the municipal network will be delayed for several months more while TDS has the opportunity to "compete" with the government network.
"In Mitchell's view, this was the only point of the lawsuit; even in defeat, Bridgewater has tied the project up for six months and delayed it into next year. TDS, for its part, insists to us that it simply wanted to protect taxpayers from covering an expensive system that TDS itself could operate more efficiently."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081009-city-owned-fiber-network-a-go-as-judge-tosses-telco-lawsuit.html