Slashdot Mirror
FTC Wants To Straighten Out IP Law
coondoggie writes with this excerpt from NetworkWorld:
"What do you get when you mix the government, the court system, company lawyers and Joe Consumer? A serious mess that would send most people screaming into the night. But the Federal Trade Commission is no such entity. It wants to straighten Intellectual Property (IP) out and today said it will hold a series of hearings — the first in Washington, DC on Dec. 5 — it will use to examine IP law and the myriad issues surrounding it. Interested bigwigs from the tech industry, including Cisco, Yahoo and the Computer & Communications Industry Association are expected to testify along with professors, lawyers and other industry players. The patent system has experienced significant change and more changes are under consideration, the FTC said."
The FTC held some different, but related hearings this week which addressed topics such as copyright law and DRM interoperability. Transcripts, podcasts, and summaries of the talks are available on the FTC-hosted "Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade" site.
When did it go gay?
that consumers and fair use get the short end of the stick at these hearings?
God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
Right from the summary:
Interested bigwigs from the tech industry, including Cisco, Yahoo and the Computer & Communications Industry Association are expected to testify along with professors, lawyers and other industry players
I don't see a mention of consumers, and since consumers don't pay for lawyers (except the few who defend IP suits) or professors (who's salaries are paid for by "research grants" from corporations), it sounds like this can only end in tears.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
One of the three big lies is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".
I'd remind you that every time the government gets involved in IP law at every level, it ends up worse for consumers. Every time. So you should be scared when you see this. We'll end up like crazy canadian laws where an entrenched monopoly gets a tax on anything that poses a threat to that monopoly (taxes on ipods, black CD's, and likely ISP taxes).
And that isn't the worst thing that could happen. The monopolies will be pushing for chips inside devices that can "tell" when media isn't authorized. In the name of helping the people of course.
I realize I'm giving worst case scenarios here, but ask yourself this... Is the FTC likely to say "Goodness, none of the current laws are very consumer friendly, therefore, copyright/patent will be reduced in time and scope, there can be no more DRM, and people should be able to use music and video wherever they want, whenever they want". Won't happen, because the FTC doesn't have the authority to make it better. They do have the authority to make things *worse* for consumers though in terms of mandates and taxes.
No thanks.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Nonono..
Mickey and Minnie *were* married, but they got divorced a few years back. Disney did an awesome job of keeping it out of the press, but I got the following story from an insider:
While it was happening, Mickey went to his lawyer and explained why things weren't working out between them. He ranted for over an hour, and when he was finished, his lawyer said
"Well Mr. Mouse, while I can sympathize with you, I'm afraid you can't divorce your wife simply because you think she's a bit odd."
Mickey jumped up and shouted "No! I didn't say she was odd - I said she was fucking Goofy!"
It really depends upon who turns up from the corporations - if the IP lawyers have their say, then expect crazy software and business process patents to be favoured.
If the CFOs and CTOs are involved, then the debate may be more balanced - fighting stupid patent cases as a cost of doing business can't be attractive for the beancounters, and the technical guys are more likely to appreciate how ludicrous the idea of patenting an algorithm is.
This could turn out to be a good thing - the fact that it is being debated at all is encouraging.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
"Defensive IP" is designed to be used as part of a counter-suit in the event that one big company sues another over IP infringement. This eventually gave birth to "IP Holding" companies whose primary purpose is to sue people over IP infringement and they are ultimately immune to counter-suits because they don't actually use or apply IP... just collect money from claims, settlements and law suits.
The problem with IP is that is has become an industry in and of itself.
And by IP, I mean copyrights and patents.
Obama won't be president until he's sworn in, in January.
THEN everything will magically and instantly be fixed.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
For some meaning of the word "fixed".
I don't hold out much hope for Obama making things better, but he might slow the rate at which they are getting worse.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Do you see any mention of asking every day citizens whether they want to be able to copy a song from their friend? If not, it'll go industry's way.
I don't trust congress to be able to define copyleft correctly. RMS agonizes over whether the FSF has done it correctly, and his heart is in it. Boiling this task down to a yea/nay vote for 535 people who have so many other issues they're supposed to be up-to-date on that many decisions go to whichever party can purchase more of the congressperson's ear time sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Weren't you paying attention? YES. WE. CAN!