That tired cliche rests on the unsound assumption that the powers that be don't make mistakes.
The reason we have a legal system with warrants, trials, juries, and all that other fluff instead of an omniscient judge whose word is immediate and final is precisely BECAUSE humans are fallible, corruptible, potentially senile beings who cannot be trusted either with their minds OR their hearts.
Fair use as a defense has absolutely NOTHING to do with why our rights in the digital world are going away.
The fact is even if you are on rock solid legal ground, you are first of all hamstrung by a severe cost advantage corporations possess by virtue of their large legal budgets and chances are you'll get drilled into the ground and bankrupted before you survive a trial, and second of all your fate is in the hands of twelve people that are probably going to be complete morons about copyright law, thanks to the plaintiff's attorney's striking anyone with even a clue of how things work.
Consequently, anyone who would in theory be entitled to make a parody, satire, or other such fair use of a copyrighted work will, if facing the wrath of a corporation that wishes to censor them, find themselves fighting a huge battle even if the law is on their side, and will more often than not either settle and cough up protection money rather than get bruised in court, or simply not take the risk in the first place.
Big media, knowing this, sees no downside to suing the crap out of anyone and everyone that even remotely looks like they are infringing, and they have no incentive to be reasonable or even negotiate with the smallest semblance of good faith. Compared to an indigent defendant they have nothing to lose from being wrong, whereas the defendant has plenty to lose even if they are completely right.
Bleem is a prime example. They paid for their victory with their lives, as the cost of being sued by Sony wound up bankrupting them, and they never had the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their battle, and they serve as a stern warning to any who would dare defy Sony in the future.
If you're "only looking out for number one" and do not give a shit about anyone but yourself, then it is quite rational to be selfish. Game theory even demands it.
The only place morals have in business is through PR.
You see, by itself, killing children for 10 bucks each with a cost of a dollar per bullet is a good margin.
It's the outraged public that will boycott, sue, and protest that will nail you in the pocketbook.
Considering that your customers are probably just as conniving and greedy as you are, they probably don't give a shit either, and the few folks that have a heart are going to be drowned out by the masses that don't.
You'd think they could at least prove the cop and the hidden camera were both photographing the same intersection and use a bit of triangulation to prove that the cop's pictures were deliberately excluding the stop sign.
With that, you could establish that the cop was a liar, and attack his credibility, and maybe, if fortunate enough, get him nailed for perjury and kicked off the force. Police departments usually don't take kindly to their officers committing felonies on the job.
Then again if you got that close the judge would probably panic and toss you out for contempt.
There's a fundamental problem with orphan works and "opt in".
By definition an orphan work is one whose copyright owner cannot be located. Demanding that they opt in defeats the whole purpose, since as soon as you find them they cease to be orphan works.
My personal opinion:
If someone in good faith looks diligently and attempts to find a copyright holder for a particular work, should be entitled to publish his intent to use the work as public domain, thus establishing constructive notice to the world. If the copyright holder doesn't present himself in a timely manner, he loses the right to sue retroactively for any damages, and the diligent dude who found his work (and anyone else) can treat it as public domain for a minimum of 1 year before any copyright claims are enforceable, plus an additional 6 months or so after being notified.
But alas, this is more appropriately a legislative remedy.
I would, however, opine that anyone who completes the above steps, and only gets bit when he starts making money (by a copyright troll), has established fair use, possibly qualified with a defense of laches if the copyright holder sat on the notice and didn't do anything. If the holder can't even be arsed to respond to a "hey mister john doe guy that owns the copyright for this work, I want to make something of it but I don't know who to give the royalties to, so I'm going to sit on it for awhile and hope you get in touch.", they don't deserve to throw legal fire on an innocent guy who did his due diligence.
Slashdot Mirror
You hit the nail on the head.
In fact there are already cures for cancer. They involve oxygenating or alkalinizing the body, among other things.
However, cancer treatments are so lucrative that anyone curing cancer would face the wrath of the pharmaceutical cartel.
That tired cliche rests on the unsound assumption that the powers that be don't make mistakes.
The reason we have a legal system with warrants, trials, juries, and all that other fluff instead of an omniscient judge whose word is immediate and final is precisely BECAUSE humans are fallible, corruptible, potentially senile beings who cannot be trusted either with their minds OR their hearts.
Fair use as a defense has absolutely NOTHING to do with why our rights in the digital world are going away.
The fact is even if you are on rock solid legal ground, you are first of all hamstrung by a severe cost advantage corporations possess by virtue of their large legal budgets and chances are you'll get drilled into the ground and bankrupted before you survive a trial, and second of all your fate is in the hands of twelve people that are probably going to be complete morons about copyright law, thanks to the plaintiff's attorney's striking anyone with even a clue of how things work.
Consequently, anyone who would in theory be entitled to make a parody, satire, or other such fair use of a copyrighted work will, if facing the wrath of a corporation that wishes to censor them, find themselves fighting a huge battle even if the law is on their side, and will more often than not either settle and cough up protection money rather than get bruised in court, or simply not take the risk in the first place.
Big media, knowing this, sees no downside to suing the crap out of anyone and everyone that even remotely looks like they are infringing, and they have no incentive to be reasonable or even negotiate with the smallest semblance of good faith. Compared to an indigent defendant they have nothing to lose from being wrong, whereas the defendant has plenty to lose even if they are completely right.
Bleem is a prime example. They paid for their victory with their lives, as the cost of being sued by Sony wound up bankrupting them, and they never had the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their battle, and they serve as a stern warning to any who would dare defy Sony in the future.
I'd put 10 percent of tax revenues dedicated to the sole purpose of paying down the national debt.
And I'd end the bush era tax cuts.
Neither of which is going to fly because we the people don't actually make decisions on what happens in DC.
Anyone strong enough to kill me and/or take my money away is already the de-facto government.
How much of it is gauging of consensus, and how much of it is peer pressure to "conform" to the storm?
With commercial entities doing the work, the worst that can happen is you get smeared in the media.
They can't raid you armed to the teeth like the feds can.
Gotta keep that pharmaceutical lobby going.
I don't trust the warden not to abuse me or the judge not to be bribed.
I still have a shitload of unknown people blocked on buzz because they don't let you poll your contacts.
It doesn't really matter how well you secure the computer, if you have people that are weaker.
http://xkcd.com/538/
If someone in italy abducts someone else, prosecute under italian law. Don't just whine to the states and ask them to handle it.
And the one who makes the rules controls the gold.
Which is why nothing will ever change.
You have to be evil enough for your customers to hate your evil more than they like the bargain your evil gives them.
Mod down, frivolous warning about a goatse that isn't actually a goatse.
"I got mine" is practically rational.
If you're "only looking out for number one" and do not give a shit about anyone but yourself, then it is quite rational to be selfish. Game theory even demands it.
The only place morals have in business is through PR.
You see, by itself, killing children for 10 bucks each with a cost of a dollar per bullet is a good margin.
It's the outraged public that will boycott, sue, and protest that will nail you in the pocketbook.
Considering that your customers are probably just as conniving and greedy as you are, they probably don't give a shit either, and the few folks that have a heart are going to be drowned out by the masses that don't.
Capitalism doesn't by itself prevent you from having morals. It just makes it more expensive to have them than not.
Competition with douchebag companies that don't have morals is what keeps you evil. If you do good the costs will push you out of the market.
It's cheaper to be evil.
Connivance.
Implied license.
Estoppel by acquiescence.
You're probably such an old fart by now that you've memorized slashdot's IP address.
Strange.
You'd think they could at least prove the cop and the hidden camera were both photographing the same intersection and use a bit of triangulation to prove that the cop's pictures were deliberately excluding the stop sign.
With that, you could establish that the cop was a liar, and attack his credibility, and maybe, if fortunate enough, get him nailed for perjury and kicked off the force. Police departments usually don't take kindly to their officers committing felonies on the job.
Then again if you got that close the judge would probably panic and toss you out for contempt.
There's a fundamental problem with orphan works and "opt in".
By definition an orphan work is one whose copyright owner cannot be located. Demanding that they opt in defeats the whole purpose, since as soon as you find them they cease to be orphan works.
My personal opinion:
If someone in good faith looks diligently and attempts to find a copyright holder for a particular work, should be entitled to publish his intent to use the work as public domain, thus establishing constructive notice to the world. If the copyright holder doesn't present himself in a timely manner, he loses the right to sue retroactively for any damages, and the diligent dude who found his work (and anyone else) can treat it as public domain for a minimum of 1 year before any copyright claims are enforceable, plus an additional 6 months or so after being notified.
But alas, this is more appropriately a legislative remedy.
I would, however, opine that anyone who completes the above steps, and only gets bit when he starts making money (by a copyright troll), has established fair use, possibly qualified with a defense of laches if the copyright holder sat on the notice and didn't do anything. If the holder can't even be arsed to respond to a "hey mister john doe guy that owns the copyright for this work, I want to make something of it but I don't know who to give the royalties to, so I'm going to sit on it for awhile and hope you get in touch.", they don't deserve to throw legal fire on an innocent guy who did his due diligence.
Post
RMS isn't a geek. He's a fanatic.
I for one am glad a geek IS the project manager.
More focused on getting it right than meeting deadlines.