If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slashdot)   All new technology should be considered illegal, unless Congress approves it first. Oh yes, it certainly was a lawyer and former federal official who said it. Who else would be that stupid?   (yro.slashdot.org) divider line 106
    More: Asinine, Volstead Act, pre-empts, police power  
•       •       •

6507 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Sep 2012 at 12:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-30 12:18:57 PM
What in the f*ck?
 
2012-09-30 12:34:24 PM
Well, this is sure to spawn innovation!

/Did I say spawn?
//I meant spurn.
 
2012-09-30 12:34:54 PM
Like Ralph Oman on facebook. Follow Ralph Oman on Twitter. Deride Ralph Oman on Fark.
 
2012-09-30 12:38:58 PM
A 2 sentence article? Might as well link to a tweet.
 
2012-09-30 12:39:48 PM
LOL! Sounds like a certain Ayn Rand novel!
 
2012-09-30 12:40:13 PM
Yet another useless Slashdot article reporting on what some moron who doesn't have any importance said.
 
2012-09-30 12:44:17 PM
Well, if congress has to approve all new technology, then I say we stop voting for lawyers and business men in congressional elections and start voting for engineers and scientists.
 
2012-09-30 12:51:34 PM
FTFA: ......all new content-delivery technology should be presumed illegal unless and until it is approved by Congress. He adds that providers of new technology should be forced to apply to Congress to prove they don't upset existing business models." 

How is it possible that the former U.S. Register of Copyrights himself doesn't see how retarded this is? Is this a-hole just completely in the pocket of some monolith in the tech industry? At what point in our history has it ever been a good idea to stifle research and development in favor of protecting existing corporate interests?
 
2012-09-30 12:52:25 PM
The purpose of regulation is to raise barriers to entry for new competitors, drive smaller firms out of business or into an acquisition by a larger firm, and ensure that larger firms are able to hold onto their market share.
 
2012-09-30 12:52:30 PM
Will it stop people lining up early in front of the Apple Store? Will it stop making computers face obsolescence within two years? Will it stop making us update Adobe Acrobat every two weeks even though I never use the thing? Will it? WILL IT?!?
 
2012-09-30 12:53:20 PM
It's too bad we didn't have heroes like this 150 years or so ago. We could have saved the horse & buggy industry from being destroyed by the automobile!
 
2012-09-30 12:55:08 PM

legion_of_doo: The purpose of regulation is to raise barriers to entry for new competitors, drive smaller firms out of business or into an acquisition by a larger firm, and ensure that larger firms are able to hold onto their market share.


Damn, you're right. Seat belts, clean water, non-toxic food...all just ploys to make more money for large corporations.
 
2012-09-30 12:57:37 PM
Dumbest thing I read all week. The fact that he doesn't want technology to mess up an existing business model proves how crazy, greedy and out of touch these assholes really are.
 
2012-09-30 12:57:45 PM
Gil Hamilton approves
 
2012-09-30 01:00:36 PM

Barricaded Gunman: How is it possible that the former U.S. Register of Copyrights himself doesn't see how retarded this is? Is this a-hole just completely in the pocket of some monolith in the tech media content production industry?


FTFY. This is copyright, not patents - the interests seeking protection are those of the RIAA and MPAA and their affiliate production companies.

It's an interesting issue. Aereo was specifically created to use a loophole in Copyright Law. While it's certainly lawful, it's not what Congress intended. That said, it's also awesome from technical and legal standpoint, and hilarious.
I would expect Congress to modify Copyright Law to remove the loophole because when it comes down to a tiny minority of consumers vs. big money interests, you know which way it will break, but that's for them to do, not the courts.
 
2012-09-30 01:05:51 PM
"Providers of new technology should be forced to apply to Congress to prove they don't upset existing business models."

Uh, HELLO, the very purpose of new technology is to upset existing business models. This is called progress, you caveman.

/business major
//and caveman
 
2012-09-30 01:16:21 PM

Teufelaffe: legion_of_doo: The purpose of regulation is to raise barriers to entry for new competitors, drive smaller firms out of business or into an acquisition by a larger firm, and ensure that larger firms are able to hold onto their market share.

Damn, you're right. Seat belts, clean water, non-toxic food...all just ploys to make more money for large corporations.


You really have to think a bit more... and follow the money. SOME regulations derive from "do-gooder" attempts at increasing consumer safety. Some of these actually work as intended (while many just or also establish a horror-fest of unintended consequences). And SOME regulations are, yes indeed, passed to "raise barriers to entry for new competitors, drive smaller firms out of business or into an acquisition by a larger firm, and ensure that larger firms are able to hold onto their market share." When the federal government can do damn near anything it wants based on a "living" interpretation of the Commerce clause then vested corporate interests will use government as an efficient tool to get what they want.

Or you can simply parrot lib talking points about Ebil Korporations and how wonderful things would be if the government ran everything.
 
2012-09-30 01:17:18 PM

enforcerpsu: Dumbest thing I read all week. The fact that he doesn't want technology to mess up an existing business model proves how crazy, greedy and out of touch these assholes really are.


Mmmmm.... Ayn Rand pointed this out some time ago.

Just sayin'...
 
2012-09-30 01:18:07 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When the federal government can do damn near anything it wants based on a "living" interpretation of the Commerce clause then vested corporate interests will use government as an efficient tool to get what they want.

Or you can simply parrot lib talking points about Ebil Korporations and how wonderful things would be if the government ran everything.


Or, you can simply parrot neocon talking points about Ebil Guberment and how wonderful things would be if the corporations ran everything.
 
2012-09-30 01:18:44 PM
Didn't slashdot get sold to fox or something? It certainly feels like they did any ways.
 
2012-09-30 01:19:52 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Mmmmm.... Ayn Rand pointed this out some time ago.

Just sayin'...


media.comicvine.com
 
2012-09-30 01:20:44 PM
Akin?
 
2012-09-30 01:21:05 PM
Lets make it illegal for politicians to campaign unless the other parties agree to them campaigning.
 
2012-09-30 01:22:07 PM

Teufelaffe: Damn, you're right. Seat belts, clean water, non-toxic food...all just ploys to make more money for large corporations.


Well, seat belts and helmet laws and other laws of that ilk are clearly designed to help insurance companies avoid or reduce claims, so there's that.
 
2012-09-30 01:22:47 PM

BumpInTheNight: Didn't slashdot get sold to fox or something? It certainly feels like they did any ways.


The Slashdot community is always paranoid about the government, no matter who happens to be in power.
 
2012-09-30 01:25:12 PM
You know how the Muslims get irate when people make fun of their religion?

I'm starting to think we should do something similar when people make up retarded nonsense about how far congressional powers or copyright law should reach.
We should go out there to break some shiat, burn down some other shiat, and shout angrily until the politicians start apologizing for these idiots.
Maybe then they'll actually think about what it costs to kiss up to industry, because there will be an actual bill of damages to the city.
 
2012-09-30 01:26:46 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Teufelaffe: legion_of_doo: The purpose of regulation is to raise barriers to entry for new competitors, drive smaller firms out of business or into an acquisition by a larger firm, and ensure that larger firms are able to hold onto their market share.

Damn, you're right. Seat belts, clean water, non-toxic food...all just ploys to make more money for large corporations.

You really have to think a bit more... and follow the money. SOME regulations derive from "do-gooder" attempts at increasing consumer safety. Some of these actually work as intended (while many just or also establish a horror-fest of unintended consequences). And SOME regulations are, yes indeed, passed to "raise barriers to entry for new competitors, drive smaller firms out of business or into an acquisition by a larger firm, and ensure that larger firms are able to hold onto their market share." When the federal government can do damn near anything it wants based on a "living" interpretation of the Commerce clause then vested corporate interests will use government as an efficient tool to get what they want.

Or you can simply parrot lib talking points about Ebil Korporations and how wonderful things would be if the government ran everything.


You really shouldn't be so hard on that strawman you just beat the snot out of.
 
2012-09-30 01:30:19 PM

way south: You know how the Muslims get irate when people make fun of their religion?

I'm starting to think we should do something similar when people make up retarded nonsense about how far congressional powers or copyright law should reach.
We should go out there to break some shiat, burn down some other shiat, and shout angrily until the politicians start apologizing for these idiots.
Maybe then they'll actually think about what it costs to kiss up to industry, because there will be an actual bill of damages to the city.


Can we do this with musicians and/or entertainers try to speak out on political issues as well?
 
2012-09-30 01:37:31 PM
legion_of_doo: "Regulations are corporate tools to maximize profits."
Teufelaffe: "Here are some that are about public safety."
Just Another OC Homeless Guy: "Stop saying corporations are evil, you stupid lib!"

Do you see how stupid you look, JAOCHG?
 
2012-09-30 01:37:35 PM
In fairness, we have laws that make marijuana illegal for use in just about every form today because a lot of cotton and timber folks REALLY didn't want competition.

And you see how well that's worked out.

Essentially, this isn't so much about the far reaching hand of government, but the far reaching hand of a market that seeks to control its own players and outlaw competition...
 
2012-09-30 01:40:56 PM

hubiestubert: In fairness, we have laws that make marijuana illegal for use in just about every form today because a lot of cotton and timber folks REALLY didn't want competition.

And you see how well that's worked out.

Essentially, this isn't so much about the far reaching hand of government, but the far reaching hand of a market that seeks to control its own players and outlaw competition...


..by using the far reaching hand of govt.
 
2012-09-30 01:43:21 PM
Is this the Miriam Godwinson social engineering choice?
 
2012-09-30 01:43:54 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LOL! Sounds like a certain Ayn Rand novel!


Or, you know, the exact opposite but whatever.
 
2012-09-30 01:44:46 PM

rjakobi: Will it stop people lining up early in front of the Apple Store? Will it stop making computers face obsolescence within two years? Will it stop making us update Adobe Acrobat every two weeks even though I never use the thing? Will it? WILL IT?!?


You can uninstall Acrobat if you don't use it.
 
2012-09-30 01:51:19 PM

BumpInTheNight: way south: You know how the Muslims get irate when people make fun of their religion?

I'm starting to think we should do something similar when people make up retarded nonsense about how far congressional powers or copyright law should reach.
We should go out there to break some shiat, burn down some other shiat, and shout angrily until the politicians start apologizing for these idiots.
Maybe then they'll actually think about what it costs to kiss up to industry, because there will be an actual bill of damages to the city.

Can we do this with musicians and/or entertainers try to speak out on political issues as well?


Sure, why not?
We've all been playing along like nice citizens and we're behind on our shiat breaking quota. All its gotten us is a black president who seems to operate like all the white ones. We have the same assholes behind the scenes making the same kinds of power grabs they always have.

Somehow we've got to let them know that this kinda thing wont be accepted anymore.
 
2012-09-30 01:53:33 PM

red5ish: Like Ralph Oman on facebook. Follow Ralph Oman on Twitter. Deride Ralph Oman on Fark.


Act like a spoiled brat, and see where that gets us, in other words. We've see this strategy before, and what it gets us, besides the attention so much of us crave, is approximately jack squat in terms of real change.

Folks, the people who run things are called legislators. Ostensbily, they work for us. They know this. They mostly ignore us, because we mostly leave them alone, while putting on street theatre and irritating people who can't and won't do anything useful for us that we want.

If you want change, contact your elected officials. Not only do they actually work for, you they're actually empowered to effect the changes you want, if enough of you approach them in a grown-up manner. I've done this. It's real work, and you don't get a lot of attention or recognition for it (often none), and it might not get the results you want, since you're up against everyone else who bothers to participate in the process. But the thing to know is that it *can* work in your interests, and sometimes, does; and more importantly, it's the *only* think that really can.

So forget the grandstanding on social networks. Slacktivism is worth a few moments' catharsis, but doesn't actually accomlish much, if anything. Actually participating in the democratic representative process can and sometimes does. But it's admittedly less 'fun'.
 
2012-09-30 01:54:54 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: red5ish: Like Ralph Oman on facebook. Follow Ralph Oman on Twitter. Deride Ralph Oman on Fark.

Act like a spoiled brat, and see where that gets us, in other words. We've see this strategy before, and what it gets us, besides the attention so much of us crave, is approximately jack squat in terms of real change.

Folks, the people who run things are called legislators. Ostensbily, they work for us. They know this. They mostly ignore us, because we mostly leave them alone, while putting on street theatre and irritating people who can't and won't do anything useful for us that we want.

If you want change, contact your elected officials. Not only do they actually work for, you they're actually empowered to effect the changes you want, if enough of you approach them in a grown-up manner. I've done this. It's real work, and you don't get a lot of attention or recognition for it (often none), and it might not get the results you want, since you're up against everyone else who bothers to participate in the process. But the thing to know is that it *can* work in your interests, and sometimes, does; and more importantly, it's the *only* think that really can.

So forget the grandstanding on social networks. Slacktivism is worth a few moments' catharsis, but doesn't actually accomlish much, if anything. Actually participating in the democratic representative process can and sometimes does. But it's admittedly less 'fun'.


I think I could have garbled that a bit more, but it would have taken some real work. Sorry.
 
2012-09-30 02:01:41 PM
Would this make drawing up plans for a new idea be illegal?
Would thinking about how to improve something be illegal?
 
2012-09-30 02:09:28 PM

enforcerpsu: Dumbest thing I read all week. The fact that he doesn't want technology to mess up an existing business model proves how crazy, greedy and out of touch these assholes really are.


I skimmed Mr. Oman's brief. (Admittedly, the mechanical details of his particular argument don't interest me that much, not nearly as much as the overarching philosophy that seems largely absent in it.) I did a quick bio search on him, and I believe he's sincere, and not acting as proxy for larger interests -- even though I think that's the instinctive feeling a lot of us will have. It seems to me, rather, that he's an architectural bureaucrat, who for whatever reason has fallen in love with what he perceives as his personal legal legacy, and now feels to be under threat from the inexorable march of technical innovation.

From my own perspetive, not so much him personally but the architecture he defends is at this point hopelessly outdated, and needs to adapt or die. (You taking notes, Big Music and Motion Picture?) I think his legal argument is probably valid -- though again, I haven't really studied it -- but ultimately misguided, in that the precepts it's based on are themselves no longer valid (or at least no longer viable, which for our purposes amounts to the same thing at this point in history).

It's kind of sad, then. He means well, and he believes he's right, and within a certian range of argument his argument is defensible. But it's ultimately hopeless, and he might even know that. The courts may well side with his argument, but again, that architecture, even if legally defensible in the short term, is not sustainable or viable -- and thus functionally valid -- in the long term. I've been arguing for years now that traditional over-the-air broadcast business models are no longer viable, but most colleagues in my field (NCE radio) don't want to hear it. Predictably, those models are starting to fail, and their advocates going down with them. (I personally lobbied one of my own mentors on this a couple years ago; he smiled and dismissed my concerns. Six months later, he was fired, and his station taken over and most of the senior staff I hoped he'd lobby run out. It's one time I was extremely sorry to be right about something.)

I've never workd in television, but the basic business model can't be very different. In radio, the model is based on the inherent technical limitations of delivery: limited range, limited listenership, and limited choices for listeners. One of those key factors has undergone a tremendous change, and it just happens to be the one that supplies the revenue. That's what this is all about: people don't want to pay for broadcast anymore because they don't have to, and broadcast doesn't want to change to deal with that reality. For now, they're holding off some of the coming tide with lawyers, guns, and money, but it can't and won't last. It's a sad thing to behold, because they've had every opportunity to take advantage of this, but have refused to accept it. In the end, arguments like Mr. Oman's can't help but become footnotes in history. People and technology will out, and there's no stopping that in the long term: centuries of history of technological innovation have taught us that. And that history is filled with examples of those who refused to accept it, and perished as a result. Good, decent, well-meaning people, who simply could not or would not see the reality for what it is.
 
2012-09-30 02:12:17 PM
Everything is geared for advertising and making the latest access point obsolete. The internet is infected and it will not come out of this.

Anything that gets me home faster so I can sit in front of it until I have to wake up the next morning and chase it all over again is good by me.

Just pump my flesh and my blood back into the dirt faster so we can get this thing going. Can't you guys see that I don't have time to waste?
 
2012-09-30 02:19:58 PM

Theaetetus: Barricaded Gunman: How is it possible that the former U.S. Register of Copyrights himself doesn't see how retarded this is? Is this a-hole just completely in the pocket of some monolith in the tech media content production industry?

FTFY. This is copyright, not patents - the interests seeking protection are those of the RIAA and MPAA and their affiliate production companies.

It's an interesting issue. Aereo was specifically created to use a loophole in Copyright Law. While it's certainly lawful, it's not what Congress intended. That said, it's also awesome from technical and legal standpoint, and hilarious.
I would expect Congress to modify Copyright Law to remove the loophole because when it comes down to a tiny minority of consumers vs. big money interests, you know which way it will break, but that's for them to do, not the courts.


I think this case has as much to do with international copywrite protection as much as domestic, and that's going to be a major factor in how Congress responds. The courts are bound by U.S. law, but Congress is a signatory to international agreements, including some enforced by world trade organisations. So my sense right now is that they'll feel pressured to close the loophole. Ideally, they should instead lobby the global trade community to study the issue and respond creatively, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. In times of economic hardship, the instinct is to close ranks, not open a new storefront. Too bad, because that'll only make it harder for everyone involved. The kind of chage Aereo is driving isn't just good, it's inevitable: people want this, very badly. But it's apparently going to take another decade or so of international wrangling to bring it about. During that period of discussion and debate, piracy will deliver the goods, and enforcers will have their hands full dealing with it.

The safe option, then, might be to hold the loophole open with a pass-through payment structure. I think all the components are already there, too, just waiting to be assembled in the right way: Aereo will charge a certain subscription surcharge, which will be passed on to original providers as payment for carriage, very much like other pay-for-carriage models already proven to work. I'd like to think that that would satisfy prividers and regulators alike, while making the much-demanded service legally available.
 
2012-09-30 02:22:53 PM
When they outlaw new technology, only outlaws will own new technology.
 
2012-09-30 02:27:27 PM

hubiestubert: In fairness, we have laws that make marijuana illegal for use in just about every form today because a lot of cotton and timber folks REALLY didn't want competition.

And you see how well that's worked out.

Essentially, this isn't so much about the far reaching hand of government, but the far reaching hand of a market that seeks to control its own players and outlaw competition...


It's my understanding that cannabis was outlawed to preserve Dupont's woodpulp paper process, but your point is valid all the same.

My own main indictment against the copywrite lobby has been that I'm fairly sure that it mostly does not function in the ultimate best interests of the original creators -- who are, after all, the people it's supposedly all about. If it did, I might see all these arguments very differently, but for now, I see it as parasitic corporations defending their current exploitation models. I don't believe current copywrite laws protect artists' interests well, and thus benefit them significantly -- in that when they 'work,' they seem to benefit the 'protectors' much more than the artists -- and so it's hard for me to want to defend them, even though I agree with the rule of law and with regulation generally. And having worked at the delivery end, I've seen how these models impact delivery and thus consumer exposure, which also seems to me to not really benefit creators that much. Or the public and our shared culture, obviously.
 
2012-09-30 02:31:01 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I think this case has as much to do with international copywrite


wat

protection as much as domestic, and that's going to be a major factor in how Congress responds. The courts are bound by U.S. law, but Congress is a signatory to international agreements, including some enforced by world trade organisations. So my sense right now is that they'll feel pressured to close the loophole.

Not the courts, though. The relevant international agreements - TRIPS and Berne - are non-self executing, so the courts can't point to them as a reason to modify the Copyright Act. They can say that Congress isn't fulfilling its requirements, but then WIPO (or another signatory country) has to be the one to levy any penalties.
That said, those agreements don't actually seem to require more. It's one of the reasons that they were pushing for more in ACTA.

The kind of chage Aereo is driving isn't just good, it's inevitable: people want this, very badly. But it's apparently going to take another decade or so of international wrangling to bring it about. During that period of discussion and debate, piracy will deliver the goods, and enforcers will have their hands full dealing with it.

The safe option, then, might be to hold the loophole open with a pass-through payment structure. I think all the components are already there, too, just waiting to be assembled in the right way: Aereo will charge a certain subscription surcharge, which will be passed on to original providers as payment for carriage, very much like other pay-for-carriage models already proven to work. I'd like to think that that would satisfy prividers and regulators alike, while making the much-demanded service legally available.


That's one possibility. I think also likely could be the inclusion of banner ads embedded in broadcasts... and then stripping those ads would be creation of a derivative work that would be actionable copyright infringement. That way, the producers are still getting their ad revenue because the ads are seen, and they don't care about what happens with downstream rebroadcasting, DVRs, streaming, etc.
 
2012-09-30 02:33:01 PM

Theaetetus: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Mmmmm.... Ayn Rand pointed this out some time ago.

Just sayin'...


Didn't read the book, huh?
 
2012-09-30 02:33:05 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: the copywrite lobby

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: current copywrite laws


lovetoedit.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-30 02:39:02 PM

Teufelaffe: legion_of_doo: The purpose of regulation is to raise barriers to entry for new competitors, drive smaller firms out of business or into an acquisition by a larger firm, and ensure that larger firms are able to hold onto their market share.

Damn, you're right. Seat belts, clean water, non-toxic food...all just ploys to make more money for large corporations.


You muppets must have cheered Dodd-Frank.
 
2012-09-30 02:52:11 PM

Theaetetus: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: the copywrite lobby
Sylvia_Bandersnatch: current copywrite laws

[lovetoedit.files.wordpress.com image 200x194]


That was uncalled for. IANAL, but I am a lobbyist, and have been for many years. If I'm wrong about something, by all means, educate me. But please don't be a dick just because you're right and I'm wrong. We all have our own standards for evaluating others, fair or not. My own is to judge others mainly by what I perceive as their motives, rather than primarily by their actions. I hope you'd realise that my intent is wholesome, however misguided, and seek to leverage my good will to the betterment of Fark, at the least. I can't see how just shiatting on my because you can makes anything better for anyone; and given that I used to have you favourited, I'd think you're also decent and smart enough to grasp that.

Or did I just waste a lot of words, and my own time and effort? Should I have posted a snarky meme instead? Would that have been more productive and worthwhile?
 
2012-09-30 02:52:53 PM

legion_of_doo: Teufelaffe: legion_of_doo: The purpose of regulation is to raise barriers to entry for new competitors, drive smaller firms out of business or into an acquisition by a larger firm, and ensure that larger firms are able to hold onto their market share.

Damn, you're right. Seat belts, clean water, non-toxic food...all just ploys to make more money for large corporations.

You muppets must have cheered Dodd-Frank.


Honestly, I don't know much about Dodd-Frank, but taking some time to read over what it is, I'd have to say that it appears to mostly be a pretty straightforward "make it more difficult for predatory corporations* to prey on consumers" bill. You seem to disagree. What is is exactly about Dodd-Frank that you have issue with?

*I am not saying that all corporations are predatory, merely that predatory corporations exist and Dodd-Frank seems to be addressing their more unsavory behaviors.
 
2012-09-30 02:53:34 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: hubiestubert: In fairness, we have laws that make marijuana illegal for use in just about every form today because a lot of cotton and timber folks REALLY didn't want competition.

And you see how well that's worked out.

Essentially, this isn't so much about the far reaching hand of government, but the far reaching hand of a market that seeks to control its own players and outlaw competition...

It's my understanding that cannabis was outlawed to preserve Dupont's woodpulp paper process, but your point is valid all the same.

My own main indictment against the copywrite lobby has been that I'm fairly sure that it mostly does not function in the ultimate best interests of the original creators -- who are, after all, the people it's supposedly all about. If it did, I might see all these arguments very differently, but for now, I see it as parasitic corporations defending their current exploitation models. I don't believe current copywrite laws protect artists' interests well, and thus benefit them significantly -- in that when they 'work,' they seem to benefit the 'protectors' much more than the artists -- and so it's hard for me to want to defend them, even though I agree with the rule of law and with regulation generally. And having worked at the delivery end, I've seen how these models impact delivery and thus consumer exposure, which also seems to me to not really benefit creators that much. Or the public and our shared culture, obviously.


The NWU and other writers' unions are fighting against the continued and repeated extension of copyright law--which threatens a LOT of industries. Intellectual property law is a sort of insidious creep at this point, and it threatens to stifle not just writing and film or radio, but bog down just about every damn industry nameable. In part, because distributors and publishers are using copyright law as a bludgeon to reap what amounts to protection money from folks all across the world. It isn't about protecting anyone's intellectual property, but their access to it. Which is why the NWU and others are fighting for stronger contracts with control in the hands of the originator, not the producer, distributor or middlemen. That is really the impetus for so much new intellectual property law--to bypass the creators of content, devices, and the actual property itself, and slide more and more control into the hands of those who distribute said IP.

That someone in a copyright office came up with THIS idea, it's not actually that surprising. Folks who champion copyright law the most, are the folks who look to collect, not protect the interests of those who created said intellectual property. Patent trolls have been shaking folks down for some time, and what it boils down to is that intellectual property law has far less to do with the creators, than those who hold a portion of rights pursuing those rights far beyond what the actual property originator would have wanted. Worse, they are looking to keep control for far longer than previous law allowed, with continued extensions filed over and over again. Intellectual property law, at this point, tends to favor the middlemen, as opposed to the creators.
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report