Slashdot Mirror

I just saw it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz ...Prosecution of the case continued, with charges of wire fraud and computer fraud, carrying a potential prison term of up to 35 years and a fine of up to $1 million.[50][51] One of Swartz's lawyers revealed prosecutors told him two days before Swartz’s death that "Swartz would have to spend six months in prison and plead guilty to [all] 13 charges if he wanted to avoid going to trial."[52] After Swartz's death, his attorney Marty Weinberg told press that he "nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time", but that bargain failed because "JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not."[53]

Here are the links 50 and 51:
http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/9/534.full
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-government-ups-felony-count-jstoraaron-swartz-case-four-to-thirteen.shtml

True, he might not have gotten the full 35. I would even feel fine placing a $20 bet that he would get a shorter sentence. For him the stakes were much higher. To me the threat of such a sentence seems like a form of psychological warfare.

The issue is not the laws he broke. The issue is not even the sentence a fair and just court might have assigned. The issue is the _punishment sought_ by the United States Federal Government in the person of a Federal Prosecutor for breaking those laws.

Conceivably fifty years in prison for circumventing a paywall and leeching bandwidth. Does that sound like "proportional response" to you?

It does not matter what "deal" the prosecutor secretly had in mind. Government must be held publicly accountable, and publicly the prosecutor was willing to have someone stagnate in a federal prison for fifty years for the above crimes.

If you haven't already, please read this blog by a solicitor who knew Aaron. http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully

Re:What happens if you get rid of their backdoor...
.

Probably something similar to what happened to the guy who found the FBI's GPS tracker on his car and ended up with them coming to him to retrieve it :
.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/10/08/1413240/College-Student-Finds-GPS-On-Car-FBI-Retrieve

.

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/5/1/caught_spying_on_student_fbi_demands_gps_tracker_back/

.

CBS News: FBI Spies on Student, Retrieves GPS Device
.

.

Then, in March of 2012, the FBI claims that it turned off about 3000 GPS tracking devices following a Supreme Court of the USA ruling that was not in their favor. Techdirt points out that they claim to have turned off 3000 GPS trackers and that they were having trouble retrieving them.

Take HP Loses in Tax Court to IRS and HP Grabs $14.5B Job Creation Tax Break As It Celebrates Layoffs, for instance. :-)

My god. Does anyone think about consequences, or anyone but themselves, before acting anymore?

Yeah. Problem is people like you are blind to them. We need far more of our government's secrets leaked. 99% of what the US government is keeping secret has no business being secret. And a fair percentage of that is being kept secret to cover up illegal activity by the US government. When you have crap like this going on consistently something needs change and don't give me any crap about voting either. There are no options to vote for.

Turned into a bully? It enforces the law, if that's what you mean.

Hah. Currently, your precious Constitution is considered to be toilet paper (or little more than a speed bump) by your government, which is what your Founding Fathers warned you all about three centuries ago. Right?

Watching you guys these days is like watching a train wreck in super-slow-mo.

Wrong gambit.

MS/Apple/Oracle/Rockstar/Fairsearch's gambit just failed with this settlement.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/10491421570/as-expected-ftc-announces-close-google-investigation-with-no-antitrust-charges-minor-tweaks-to-biz-practices.shtml

I'm sure it worked well when there were only a few people doing it, buying the collector's edition sets and selling them when they're no longer available, but once this kind of information about an imbalance in the market hits the news (as it just has) then you'll see a whole bunch of people pile into the market.

Then, too, if the copyrighted Lego bricks are not made in the US, soon it might not be possible to re-sell them, and thus they will be worthless as an investment.

Are you full of shit? yes. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/17582221493/patent-trolling-carnegie-mellon-wins-what-could-be-largest-patent-verdict-ever-12-billion.shtml

don't waste my time with your false flag troll. Was it invented at CMU? no, but thanks for trying. Was this about licensing? no. Is this going to stand under appeal? no. The fact that other patents cover the same thing guarantees that there is a 0% chance that this was independently invented anywhere in the world, let alone by CMU which is not Central Michigan University.

Are you full of shit? yes. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/17582221493/patent-trolling-carnegie-mellon-wins-what-could-be-largest-patent-verdict-ever-12-billion.shtml

don't waste my time with your false flag troll. Was it invented at CMU? no, but thanks for trying. Was this about licensing? no. Is this going to stand under appeal? no. The fact that other patents cover the same thing guarantees that there is a 0% chance that this was independently invented anywhere in the world, let alone by CMU which is not Central Michigan University.

While Apple can be a bit of a nuisance when it comes to patents, and I don't buy anything Apple because I think it's overpriced, my true target of 'hate' are these patent extortion rackets like Intellectual ventures.

They're practically immune from any sort of punishment.

Can't counter sue or sue them in retaliation because they don't produce anything.

Can't boycott them because they don't sell anything.

They simply make money by scamming the IP system for all they can and they don't innovate or help serve any consumer markets. All they serve is themselves.

and with patent trolls now making up over half of patent lawsuits, I think this is an issue that we need to focus more attention on addressing.

While Apple can be a bit of a nuisance when it comes to patents, and I don't buy anything Apple because I think it's overpriced, my true target of 'hate' are these patent extortion rackets like Intellectual ventures.

They're practically immune from any sort of punishment.

Can't counter sue or sue them in retaliation because they don't produce anything.

Can't boycott them because they don't sell anything.

They simply make money by scamming the IP system for all they can and they don't innovate or help serve any consumer markets. All they serve is themselves.

and with patent trolls now making up over half of patent lawsuits, I think this is an issue that we need to focus more attention on addressing.

This is a system whereby every time someone connects a new computer to the Internet, it will ask a series of probing questions and if you don't answer them all correctly (or at any point imply you have a child in the house), a massive (and wildly-inaccurate) web-filter will be put in place, in theory blocking anything about:

• sexual messages;
• violence;
• gambling;
• bullying;
• alcohol/drugs;
• abuse on social networks;
• self-harm;
• anorexia;
• grooming;
• radicalisation (religious and political); and
• suicide.*

• Because these are all things that children need protecting from and shouldn't be able to find out about (on the Internet; offline everything is fine). Oh, and because user-generated content tends to contain a lot of this, many of the existing filters just block all blog sites. And anything that flags certain keywords.

  Oh, and this is to protect children from "sexualisation and commercialisation." But it won't block adverts. Or the Daily Mail (who are, of course, behind this block - presumably to drive desperate children to their website?).

  And this will require putting "government sponsored filtering and snoop-ware software on every machine in the country" as part of what will be one of the largest state-sponsored mass-censorship programmes in a democracy.

  So you think nothing of value will be lost here? You might want to have another think.

  *List taken from the Government's response to the consultation on this.

Citation Needed.

Citation given.

Citation given.

Citation given.

Citation given.

The thing is, you're not selling a product, you're selling an idea. An idea entombed in a product, but still an idea.

If someone made a chair, it's a definite product. I can touch it, sit in it, and sell it. If someone wants a chair like that, they can
1. buy the chair from me, at which point I'd have to make a new chair to be able to sell to a new customer. or
2. copy it, make a replica of it. With enough time, materials, equipment and skill, it can be done. They get their chair, and I still have mine to sit in and sell. They can also
3. Steal my chair, in which case they have a chair, and I have none. The time and materials I invested in it is gone. I'd have to make a new one from scratch.

The problem with an idea is that, at the core of it, it's just data. And computers are truly excellent at working with data. So with option 2 above skill, time and materials mostly disappear. The only thing left is equipment, and almost everyone got a computer. It's still not stealing, but it can be a devaluation of the product you are selling (I say can be, because there are cases where product value have increased as a result of rampart copying. Adobe products, Microsoft products and this story are examples of this).

If someone said "I've now made this chair, and shall now get paid for everyone sitting in it, until I've been dead for 75 years!" people would think it nuts. If however, he was offering a service (a place to rest, which included a chair) then it would be different, but just the chair, wherever it happens to end up? Hardly. Yet, "I've now written this book, and shall now get paid for everyone reading it, until I've been dead for 75 years!" is perfectly acceptable. Now, think a bit before you say something. The book is sold as a product. Yet, unlike other products, when bought it's not ours. I'm not free to for example publish pictures of it. I can't improve it and sell the better version (AFAIK). It is sold as a product, yet it is not. This is, I think, one of the core problems with copyright as it is now. Intellectual property (*cough*) is cherry-picking advantages both from the product side of things, and the service side of things, and it has allowed itself to grow too big. Into a completely new thing, which the world is still struggling to get a grip on. And thus you see where some of the completely crazy stuff happening are coming from.

All this goes double and triple when applied to music and software. And I'm producing software myself, so I see your point. I'm not saying copyright needs to go, I'm saying copyright in this age is something new and unbalanced. Before copyright, people lived by performing their ideas, whereas they were stories or music. They created books containing their ideas, before mass production was possible. Now, any idea can be replicated across the entire globe in a matter of hours, by more or less anyone, at little or no cost. And people expect to live off their (or someone else's idea) idea for the rest of their life - and then some. The times ahead will be .. interesting.

Why do people complain when the government limits the choice of Internet providers, but the pirates removing my ability to choose my own business model is somehow a good thing?

You forget that you're not free to choose just any business model. I'd like a business model where everyone owning a computer paid me $1 per year as license to my software, but I doubt that would fly (hell, I'd even stretch to $.5). Here it is not the government or the fat cats restricting your business model, but your customers. These who are copying your books are people who actually want to read your story. They are your target, your potential client. They have a different view of how to get your books than you have. Think why, and think if there's any way to move closer to wha

Yes, the judge can set the amount. For example see https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/12384515619/riaa-files-expected-appeal-over-judges-decision-to-decrease-jury-award-jammie-thomas-trial.shtml

Well, last year we had a dead cop signing them! (I am from Baltimore.) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/10424713107/dead-baltimore-cop-signed-certified-red-light-camera-tickets.shtml Not sure if we can fire him.

Oh, but they are. They've bought cheap texting rates.

They're now taking it a step further and following the lead of the Hollywood and studio executives with entitlement complexes, who demand unskippable commercials and ad skipping is stealing, not just if they switch channels or fast forward on a PVR ("copyright infringement"), but even if they leave the room for a bathroom break ("I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom.")

Megaupload certainly had legitimate uses, but piracy was a major, major use. That may not have been a legitimate reason to shut it down (and certainly wasn't justification for the way it was done), but I don't think anyone can argue that Megavideo, for example, didn't have much, much more pirated content than, say, Youtube or Vimeo.

Well, by all accounts the shutdown actually HURT box office sales. It was also reported here on Slashdot.

Maybe it was just nerd rage, refusing to go to the movies ever again!

most of the patents in a smartphone are Standards Essential and fairly easy and cheap to license. a few pennies per device per patent owner.

not like you have to spend years in negotiations for tens of thousands of patents

most of these patent articles are just FUD and click bait

And how many startups are there that are creating smartphones? This argument has absolutely no relevance. Many patents relate to core activities. If a startup suddenly has to defend themselves because something essential to their software violates a few super-broad patents, that's money right from their bottom line. But it's also risk, which VCs don't like. It's a distraction, which is the LAST thing people need when they're using all their fingers and toes trying to get a business up off the ground. And if they lose, it's usually catastrophic.

This isn't theoretical; it happens. Patent battles have killed off startups. And they've impacted others. There was a report done by a law professor, Colleen Chien (what an unfortunate last name...at least it's not "Chienne"), which investigates this. A quote (I'd paste the chart in here too, if I could...check it out though):

The following chart from the report more or less speaks for itself: the smaller you are, the much higher the likelihood that a demand from a patent troll (even beyond just a lawsuit) had a "significant" operational impact.

Chien also discovered that patent troll are going after startups more than larger, well-established companies. And that makes sense; a smaller company is an easier target. Go after Google, Microsoft, HP, IBM, etc. and you're incurring the wrath of a giant. Sure, you may get paid out big time if you win, BUT you'll have to fight like hell. A little company that is more vulnerable to you than you are to them? Easy money...and a lot more of them, too. So it ends up being like the RIAA's wonderful strategy of going after people en masse...you make money by going after companies in volume.

Currently, the FBI really only sticks its nose into people that have done something 'big.'

You're serious? You haven't seen the dozens of cases where the FBI manufactured a bomb plot from some moron who chimed in on a 'shady' website that he wanted to bomb the US?

Currently, the FBI really only sticks its nose into people that have done something 'big.'

You're serious? You haven't seen the dozens of cases where the FBI manufactured a bomb plot from some moron who chimed in on a 'shady' website that he wanted to bomb the US?

Currently, the FBI really only sticks its nose into people that have done something 'big.'

You're serious? You haven't seen the dozens of cases where the FBI manufactured a bomb plot from some moron who chimed in on a 'shady' website that he wanted to bomb the US?

... on media secrecy. Techdirt has more here:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121201/01525121195/doubling-down-secrecy-itu-believes-secret-media-strategy-key-to-avoiding-sopaacta-fate.shtml

I just read about the other new white meat today.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100624/1334459952.shtml

Alleged? Lots of stories? Have you listened to him talk? He's admitted to not following the law. He should have gone to the judge for more instructions, not pretended he knew the law, when anyone who knows it can tell he's wrong about prior art. No reason to blame the press. Decide for yourself.

These rural phone companies also host free teleconfrence centers and chat lines. The goal is to have lots of callers with lots of time on the service. Many phone companies don't like the heavy drain of money to fund these free services. Low cost and free phone services are the first to pull the plug. Alternative phone services simply refuse to pay termination fees for low cost or free phone services to those rural companies. If you want to see this first hand, use Google Voice and call a free confrence room hosted in Iowa. It won't go through. Most VOIP servies block this money hole. ATT tried to block or charge LD fees to call these services, but the court blocked them.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090925/1607516327.shtml

Extortion:
The Police Raided a 9-Year-Old to Confiscate Her Winnie the Pooh Laptop

Outrageously unfair fines:
$222,000 Music Piracy Fine Not Unconstitutional, Court Rules

Hypocrites:
The RIAA Pirated $9 Million Worth of TV Shows

Ripping off the artists:
Courtney Love does the math

Making sure shit floats:
How Payola Works Today... Or Why You Only Hear Major Label ...

The biggest pirates:
Canadian Music Industry Copyright Class Action Settled

Pushing the worst laws:
Rockmelt Blog | Why PIPA and SOPA are a Very Bad Idea Ã" And ...

So, pirate everything, boycott all of them, destroy the scumfucks.

Extortion:
The Police Raided a 9-Year-Old to Confiscate Her Winnie the Pooh Laptop

Outrageously unfair fines:
$222,000 Music Piracy Fine Not Unconstitutional, Court Rules

Hypocrites:
The RIAA Pirated $9 Million Worth of TV Shows

4. Ripping off the artists.
Courtney Love does the math

Making sure shit floats:
How Payola Works Today... Or Why You Only Hear Major Label ...

The biggest pirates:
Canadian Music Industry Copyright Class Action Settled

Pushing the worst laws:
Rockmelt Blog | Why PIPA and SOPA are a Very Bad Idea â" And ...

So, pirate everything, boycott all of them, destroy the scumfucks.

This third round of action in âOperation in Our Sitesâ(TM) took control of the domains of Rojadirecta, one of Spainâ(TM)s most popular sites.

The people who operate Firstrow donâ(TM)t live in the US, and neither are their servers located there. In fact, Firstrow says that their site is perfectly legal where they are based

November when ICE seized Rojadirecta.org, a sports site held to be a legal website by Spanish courts on two occasions. The agency may have a desire to protect consumers from foreign websites. Steve Tepp, ICE senior director for Internet counterfeiting and piracy, explains that âoetheir jurisdiction is limited to the United Statesâ¦â However, Tepp argues that âoe[w]e need legislation to provide enhanced remedies to cut off foreign rogue sites from the U.S. market

U.S. Claims Global Jurisdiction of .net and .com Web Sites: Is .edu Next?

It appears to be the US asserting jurisdiction over any website in any country.

ICE seized the TVShack.net in June 2010

Indians

Asshole. Internet: See Techdirt.

People plus govt. plus Internet == clusterfuck, these days. Get used to it. This crap's going to go on for a long time.

Many "legit" stores do not benefit the artists!

Some sell the artists music without permission and do not reimburse the artists
http://torrentfreak.com/apples-itunes-sued-by-artist-for-pirating-music-110812/
http://forum.tunecore.com/post/Album-on-iTunes-without-permission-5680939

Sometimes the artists get no money because of extraordinary business practices by their music publishers or associations
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1853507190.shtml
and for interest
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/18055718229/how-ascap-takes-money-successful-indie-artists-gives-it-to-giant-rock-stars.shtml

Sometimes the artists get no money because their music publishers instruct them not to register with the copyright agency of that country SO THAT the publisher can claim that the seller is not legitimate because the artists get no money.
http://www.transmissionentertainment.com/entry/russian_based_all_of_mp3coms_former_owner_may_see_jail_time_fines_and_a_mor/
http://allofmp3.ru/press/centre.shtml?s=994&d=66219728 : "Even without an agreement between ROMS and the rightsholders, it is our understanding that ROMS, in particular, has sent several letters to the major record labels inviting them to collect their royalties. Those notices have been ignored."
http://techcrunch.com/2007/07/25/former-allofmp3com-owner-faces-jail-time/

Sometimes it's a choice between
1. not paying
2. paying and the artist gets no money
3. paying and the artist gets no money and you support an abusive music industry
4. paying and the artist gets money and you support an abusive music industry

For mass music I opt for 2 where I can because I think it does least harm.
For less popular music I use CD-Baby and other self publishing sites or buy direct from the artist.

Many "legit" stores do not benefit the artists!

Some sell the artists music without permission and do not reimburse the artists
http://torrentfreak.com/apples-itunes-sued-by-artist-for-pirating-music-110812/
http://forum.tunecore.com/post/Album-on-iTunes-without-permission-5680939

Sometimes the artists get no money because of extraordinary business practices by their music publishers or associations
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1853507190.shtml
and for interest
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/18055718229/how-ascap-takes-money-successful-indie-artists-gives-it-to-giant-rock-stars.shtml

Sometimes the artists get no money because their music publishers instruct them not to register with the copyright agency of that country SO THAT the publisher can claim that the seller is not legitimate because the artists get no money.
http://www.transmissionentertainment.com/entry/russian_based_all_of_mp3coms_former_owner_may_see_jail_time_fines_and_a_mor/
http://allofmp3.ru/press/centre.shtml?s=994&d=66219728 : "Even without an agreement between ROMS and the rightsholders, it is our understanding that ROMS, in particular, has sent several letters to the major record labels inviting them to collect their royalties. Those notices have been ignored."
http://techcrunch.com/2007/07/25/former-allofmp3com-owner-faces-jail-time/

Sometimes it's a choice between
1. not paying
2. paying and the artist gets no money
3. paying and the artist gets no money and you support an abusive music industry
4. paying and the artist gets money and you support an abusive music industry

For mass music I opt for 2 where I can because I think it does least harm.
For less popular music I use CD-Baby and other self publishing sites or buy direct from the artist.

Many "legit" stores do not benefit the artists!

Some sell the artists music without permission and do not reimburse the artists
http://torrentfreak.com/apples-itunes-sued-by-artist-for-pirating-music-110812/
http://forum.tunecore.com/post/Album-on-iTunes-without-permission-5680939

Sometimes the artists get no money because of extraordinary business practices by their music publishers or associations
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1853507190.shtml
and for interest
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/18055718229/how-ascap-takes-money-successful-indie-artists-gives-it-to-giant-rock-stars.shtml

Sometimes the artists get no money because their music publishers instruct them not to register with the copyright agency of that country SO THAT the publisher can claim that the seller is not legitimate because the artists get no money.
http://www.transmissionentertainment.com/entry/russian_based_all_of_mp3coms_former_owner_may_see_jail_time_fines_and_a_mor/
http://allofmp3.ru/press/centre.shtml?s=994&d=66219728 : "Even without an agreement between ROMS and the rightsholders, it is our understanding that ROMS, in particular, has sent several letters to the major record labels inviting them to collect their royalties. Those notices have been ignored."
http://techcrunch.com/2007/07/25/former-allofmp3com-owner-faces-jail-time/

Sometimes it's a choice between
1. not paying
2. paying and the artist gets no money
3. paying and the artist gets no money and you support an abusive music industry
4. paying and the artist gets money and you support an abusive music industry

For mass music I opt for 2 where I can because I think it does least harm.
For less popular music I use CD-Baby and other self publishing sites or buy direct from the artist.

"Indeed. The GOP will look at this study and react with incredulity, then decry the researchers as biased, and the study itself as a waste of money and time."

They already have. From TechDirt: "However, as soon as it was published, the MPAA and RIAA apparently went ballistic and hit the phones hard, demanding that the RSC take down the report. They succeeded. Even though the report had been fully vetted and approved by the RSC, executive director Paul S. Teller has now retracted it."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121117/16492521084/that-was-fast-hollywood-already-browbeat-republicans-into-retracting-report-copyright-reform.shtml

The brief has been pulled from the RSC website. It's as good a guess as any that it was pulled so fast because someone at the MPAA or RIAA put the kibosh on this. Copies of it still circulate about the internet.

The original brief was written by congressional staffer, a young guy by the name of Derek Khanna. It seems it was not a committee-wide document. Khanna continues a discussion on the matter over at Reddit. I should imagine by now that Khanna has his balls in a vice for this embarrassment.

If you're the kind of person who regularly complains about IP laws, but would rather do something about it, write Khanna a note of support by email or twitter. That doesn't mean you have to agree completely with the brief or other things Khanna has to say. It just gives him the ammunition to say that copyright reform is a good direction for the GOP and that his writing about it was not a mistake. As daemonenwind notes about, the GOP, particularly the younger elements of it, is now taking a hard look at its platform. You may be rather jaded, as I am, and believe that the old neo-con guard is likely to carry the day. They are. But if there's any hope of changing the discourse on this it will be at a time right now, when the older ways of the GOP have received electoral repudiation that a flood of cash couldn't stop. The promise of real electoral support that could come from a pro-reform platform will be particularly attractive now, especially if they get the sense that those under 35 care about this.

The "real" pdf can be downloaded from a techdirt article. Get it before it gets taken down there too.

At least when I get and Xbox/Wii/PS game I know it isn't going to install some boot loader or root kit or rogue driver on my system and screw it up

Are you kidding? Modern games come with software updates on the disk, software updates that can and do remove features from your console.

I would moderate you positively, but you started your post with "Um..." Therefore you are a gobshite who shan't post any more until you have joined a civilised society and learned proper communication skills. That said, your abuse of the word "hypocritical" makes me wonder if you are primarily an English typer. Allow me to elucidate.

âoeTo 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;â
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)
Thus, according to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to âoepromote the progress of science and useful arts.â In todayâ(TM)s terminology we may say that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation

The flaw is as follows : The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content. We have seen RIAA accounting which clearly shows the business intent is not to further the useful arts and sciences, but to pad the corporate bottom line. While it is important to individuals to protect their works, abuse on the part of corporations nullifies the intent. This is why reform is required. Not just important, significant, or any other word, but required.

Bullet point 2, "Copyright is free market capitalism at work" - that is clearly a myth. I spoke one time about a website, with a furniture salesman. He gave me candid ideas. I said, roughly, you should be careful with whom you share your ideas. His reply was, paraphrased, if you can do it better, you are welcome to the idea. He identified himself as a Libertarian as explanation.

Myth 3, "The current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation and productivity" deserves no rebuttal. It is there in the PDF, if anyone would bother to read anything but a bad summary these days.

• 
  
• Original Copyright Law: 14 years, plus 14 year renewal if author is alive.
  
• Current Copyright Law: Life of author plus 70 years; and for corporate authors 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication

Bottom line: in what world does that make sense? You can't know if a work is in the public domain until you know the author, whether it was a work for hire owned by a corporation, and when/if the author died. The innate ambiguity does the very opposite of promoting anything but the corporate bottom line.

I think that is what you meant to say, but were inadequate to express it. I give this report credit for supporting popular opinion. Until this shitstain gets enough people to stand behind it and pass a law, it means nothing.

any contract which stipulates that you have to surrender your rights is illegal.

The highest court in the land disagrees.

Once more, human stupidity rears its ugly head. Limiting people's access limits their interest. Example: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/13423720996/draconian-downloading-law-japan-goes-into-effect-music-sales-drop.shtml They can kiss good-bye to their students support for sports...and their future alumni support too.

This was a problem with electronic voting machines during the 2008 elections:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081029/0131342676.shtml

https://www.google.com/search?q=2008+voting+machine+screen+calibration

And this is precisely the sort of scenario that motivated me to take PayPal up on its unusual offer to "opt out" of its new recent adjustment to its service agreement that attempts to force customers to only use singular arbitration and prohibit class actions altogether. These news clauses are all the rage in service industries; all the corporate kids are dying to get one. Valve has one, AT&T has one, and now PayPal. I'm sure there are hundreds more I don't know about or mindlessly clicked-thru. Why PayPal chose to give customers the ability to reject that clause I can't figure, but I exercised it and this incident is demonstrative why. The rest of you have until December 31st IIRC to consider the same; you aren't likely to get this choice often.

As to why these clauses are a big fucking deal, the New York Times and TechDirt both published good analyses of the Supreme Court decision last year that inspired it and the inevitable effects. It's the same Court that gave us the Citizens United ruling and others that are almost slavishly favorable to business at the expense of the common good.

Here's the funny thing: Industry develops a standard and the IEEE gets together to approve it, but once they do they own the copyright on the standard and you can only get a copy from them, costing several hundred bucks. Some standards are split up, so instead of one fat book you are buying many small thin ones. Not a problem for big business, but a sizable expense for smaller ones and hardly an 'open' standard we want for voting machines.

Examples: http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/browse?publisher_id=95&subgroup_id=36802
A small number are free, though not many. http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/index.html

The IEEE, just like academic publishers, restricts who papers can be shown too. The IEEE is a professional organization - not a for-profit publisher, but they act just another information monopoly.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100127/0423477913.shtml

You could join and sabotage them though.

This sounds like one of those dastardly devious plots by that well-known terrorist group. I'm on to your evil schemes. You can't fool me with yo*^%(*
Error 302 Seditious activity; redirecting...

Here's another link at techdirt with a long rant. But they mention a company there too.

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/?company=embrace+hearing

And the Mouse will sic its most powerful dog on them.

Some may argue that the potential of hacking has only touched the tip of the iceberg. W/b hacking the power grid during a heat strike & causing some deaths of the young & elderly? Or causing a component at a factory to explode by overriding it's original programming? It's no longer about gaining user names / passwords to pron sites and finding out-dated wordpresses. Something like stuxnet has shown the dangers of the next level.

Yeah, about that, ...

"We're starting to be in a world where they might start to stifle innovation?"

On my planet -- which coincidentally we also call "Earth" -- patents have long since been stifling innovation, at least in software development. A small company opens its doors, finds a modicum of success, and suddenly a Non-Practicing Entity (what I believe you people call a "patent troll") shows up to claim infringement on an intentionally vague, clearly obvious patent that it managed to purchase. The small company may find it cheaper to pay off the NPE, or may simply go out of business. For giant corporations, this kind of thing is okay and perhaps even a beneficial means of eliminating disruptive upstart competition. But for the small guys (what the economists on your world call "the real job creators"), it's deadly.

Or more to the point: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121011/09581320679/dark-patent-troll-rises-now-40-all-patent-litigation.shtml

Astonishing but still within the copyright term length. Abhorrent? You bet. But I wouldn't go around attacking publishers and would instead focus on reducing the law that governs said term length.

What is the purpose of copyright? To allow a creator to profit from his or her creativity.
What creativity in this case could possibly be profited from? Is the publisher actually going to lose money from a small portion of 40 year old book making it into the public domain? Are you actually arguing that this is the case?

So what you're saying is that if I want to make money publishing my research, I should stay away from publishing suicide prevention materials since placing a copyright on that is morally reprehensible because if it's public domain it might actually save lives?

I said no such thing, but you're free to put words in peoples mouths if it gives you a reason to argue over nothing on the internet. I would however suggest that creating something that is intended to benefit the public health be allowed to benefit public health first, and be used as a mechanism for profit SECOND. But apparently I am to consider myself in the minority in that viewpoint.

So I'd like to point out that from what I've read they were given 24 hour notice from their provider and they failed to remove the article from their cache (although they did remove it from their site). If you're running a site that costs $6,954.37 just in hosting service per month, I would hope you would be a little more competent about complying with DMCA requests.

And I would hope that someday small internet businesses be freeed from the ridiculous requirement that they respond to such takedown notices before a judge has actually confirmed that someone is losing money from the violation. But I must be some kind of dreamer to hope that small business be allowed to create jobs first, and protect the property of other companies in different industries second, right?

I'm telling you right now, the way you described how horrible this is makes me never want to produce any sort of writing that might be construed as beneficial to society because then I won't be paid for my work or I'll be a monster. If Pearson can't make money off these texts, goodbye Pearson. It's that simple. And yeah, that might be the future with self publishing on the rise but right now they have those texts under laws that are legitimate US Laws.

So, suggesting that a portion of a work that was written 40 years ago might be better in the public domain actually makes you afraid to write? Are you for real?