I'm not so sure about that. Specialists in patent law tend to be pro-patent, likes GIles Sutherland Rich, who is the one that ruled on In Re Allapat and State Street. The best track record of a recent high judge on such matters seems to me to be John Paul Stevens, whose early background was antitrust, a field that tends to not be fond of legal monopolies like patents and copyright.
Perhaps he wants a challenge? If id Software employees can be part of the team, that means he might get to get to play against Carmack, making for probably the best PR here and just an awesome experience to have, even if he loses.
Will this at least put ICE domain seizures on hold (presuming American judges hold to the same logic)? Seizing property is generally held to be a pretty big deal.
Lawyers have one of the biggest and oldest free culture ecosystems. They reuse existing arguments made by other lawyers and judges, and if necessary, modify them to fit their case.
You are forgetting that copyright law includes compulsory licensing. For example, I can record a cover of any song that has already been released, and so long as I pay a predetermined royalty and meet a few other statutory requirements, I can distribute my cover of that work (which includes distributing the composition) even if the original artist absolutely despises my rendition. The author of the composition doesn't have the right to control distribution of covers after an authorized recording has been performed.
There is also a difference between copyright infringement and theft, and you know that. For the particular question, the right to exclude acts in largely the same way in both trespassing and copyright infringement. It's also similar in many ways to the right to not be assaulted. If I punch you in the face I have assaulted you, and violated your right to not be assaulted. If someone else punches you in the face, they have also violated your right to not be assaulted. Even if a hundred people punch you in the face, any further assault is going to be a violation of your rights. It's a bit awkward to think of it this way, but you have the right to exclude yourself from acts of assault. If "a bunch of dudes" assault you anyways, you still have the right to exclude people from assaulting you. Now, please don't think I'm saying that copyright infringement is assault or is similar outside of violation of the right not resulting in the loss of the right. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, and claiming it to be anything else is almost certainly a bad idea.
You getting an illegal copy would not make too much damage, but you distributing the copy makes a lot of damage because you are enabling others to get a copy.
Furthermore, due to the very nature of BT, the downloaders are also the uploaders, therefore they are the infringers.
True, but mathematically, the peers average 1 copy downloaded and 1 copy uploaded, and they are only halfway responsible for that traffic, making them, on average, responsible for the creation of 1 illicit copy
Most of the copyright violators would actually pay for the work, they don't because it is easier to download!
You're going to need a citation for that, as most of the studies I've seen show that those that illegally download end up having more than they could afford to acquire legally. Your wording does seem to indicate a major part of the underlying cause, though, as illicit channels often provide a better, easier product than legitimate channels. If legitimate channels made it is easier for consumers to get what they want, copyright infringement would likely decline or at least not grow as quickly.
If someone trespasses on your land (and thus violates your right to exclude), do you lose your ability to stop other people from trespassing on your land?
actually, the right is to STOP others from producing COPIES of a work without the copyright holder's permission. What happens with copyright infringement is that someone produces copies without the holder's permission. They are NOT deprived of that work or even the rights to that work, but instead, have had that right INFRINGED upon.
If you absolutely need to fall back on a comparison to physical property violations, it's much more like trespassing, but it's much better to consider it on it's own merits instead of shoehorning a metaphor in.
You are correct in assessing that I am not the parent of a teen. I have supervised teens a bit, though, and I was a teenager once, as were my friends and peers. Most of the parents I'm aware of generally didn't allow their children out past midnight as a general rule, but I can think of a good handful of times where they did on special occasions. This is an issue of parental discretion, not legality. When the kids actually break the law, then it's an issue of legality.
In free societies, you don't need a good reason to do something. Instead, you need a good reason to not be able to do something, and there is not a good reason to categorically stop minors from being out late at night.
I think Sega killed the Dreamcast by releasing so many consoles and console mods in such a short time. SegaCD, Sega 32x, Sega Saturn, and the Sega Dreamcast in less than a decade.
I don't recall it being called a myspace killer. It was much less ambitious than that in it's early days, when it was only available to college students. It didn't seem poised to kill myspace because there were plenty of people it wouldn't reach. Then, facebook slowly expanded to high school students and then the general public. It was a 'silent killer'
I'm not sure if respect is the right word, but this situation is far less important than a trademark violation. Also, I would say that generally speaking, the defendant in a patent lawsuit tends to be the one better categorized as a 'target,' particularly in fields like smartphones where it's practically impossible to not be infringing countless patents.
They are protecting their IP, it's protect it or lose it. I don't like the patent system as it exists but I also know it doesn't pay to try to be a lamb when you are surrounded by wolves.
No, patents do not need to be defended to remain valid. You are thinking of trademarks.
but such sentiments are not limited to slashdot, and are not limited to Android users. Besides, anti-apple bias is more to blame than loyalty to another product.
How other factors like handling of profile data come into play would be interesting, but we could isolate the profile factors by just letting the human read the text of the tweet, and nothing else.
Do we have a benchmark for how well a human can detect genders? I understand being automagic has some special applications, but it seems like a useful point of comparison for its accuracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure about that. Specialists in patent law tend to be pro-patent, likes GIles Sutherland Rich, who is the one that ruled on In Re Allapat and State Street. The best track record of a recent high judge on such matters seems to me to be John Paul Stevens, whose early background was antitrust, a field that tends to not be fond of legal monopolies like patents and copyright.
Perhaps he wants a challenge? If id Software employees can be part of the team, that means he might get to get to play against Carmack, making for probably the best PR here and just an awesome experience to have, even if he loses.
Will this at least put ICE domain seizures on hold (presuming American judges hold to the same logic)? Seizing property is generally held to be a pretty big deal.
Lawyers have one of the biggest and oldest free culture ecosystems. They reuse existing arguments made by other lawyers and judges, and if necessary, modify them to fit their case.
You are forgetting that copyright law includes compulsory licensing. For example, I can record a cover of any song that has already been released, and so long as I pay a predetermined royalty and meet a few other statutory requirements, I can distribute my cover of that work (which includes distributing the composition) even if the original artist absolutely despises my rendition. The author of the composition doesn't have the right to control distribution of covers after an authorized recording has been performed.
There is also a difference between copyright infringement and theft, and you know that. For the particular question, the right to exclude acts in largely the same way in both trespassing and copyright infringement. It's also similar in many ways to the right to not be assaulted. If I punch you in the face I have assaulted you, and violated your right to not be assaulted. If someone else punches you in the face, they have also violated your right to not be assaulted. Even if a hundred people punch you in the face, any further assault is going to be a violation of your rights. It's a bit awkward to think of it this way, but you have the right to exclude yourself from acts of assault. If "a bunch of dudes" assault you anyways, you still have the right to exclude people from assaulting you. Now, please don't think I'm saying that copyright infringement is assault or is similar outside of violation of the right not resulting in the loss of the right. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, and claiming it to be anything else is almost certainly a bad idea.
True, but mathematically, the peers average 1 copy downloaded and 1 copy uploaded, and they are only halfway responsible for that traffic, making them, on average, responsible for the creation of 1 illicit copy
You're going to need a citation for that, as most of the studies I've seen show that those that illegally download end up having more than they could afford to acquire legally. Your wording does seem to indicate a major part of the underlying cause, though, as illicit channels often provide a better, easier product than legitimate channels. If legitimate channels made it is easier for consumers to get what they want, copyright infringement would likely decline or at least not grow as quickly.
If someone trespasses on your land (and thus violates your right to exclude), do you lose your ability to stop other people from trespassing on your land?
AFACT is the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft
actually, the right is to STOP others from producing COPIES of a work without the copyright holder's permission. What happens with copyright infringement is that someone produces copies without the holder's permission. They are NOT deprived of that work or even the rights to that work, but instead, have had that right INFRINGED upon.
If you absolutely need to fall back on a comparison to physical property violations, it's much more like trespassing, but it's much better to consider it on it's own merits instead of shoehorning a metaphor in.
How so? That pnewhook is pretending that only crooks would be out at night doesn't mean that this is the situation.
You are correct in assessing that I am not the parent of a teen. I have supervised teens a bit, though, and I was a teenager once, as were my friends and peers. Most of the parents I'm aware of generally didn't allow their children out past midnight as a general rule, but I can think of a good handful of times where they did on special occasions. This is an issue of parental discretion, not legality. When the kids actually break the law, then it's an issue of legality.
Yes, only an extreme anarchist would have a problem with children being allowed outside at night regardless of whether or not they are doing any harm.
That's a reason, but not a good enough one to justify the loss of liberty.
In free societies, you don't need a good reason to do something. Instead, you need a good reason to not be able to do something, and there is not a good reason to categorically stop minors from being out late at night.
At first, I started to read this as an imperative sentence telling me to spam King Wallace. I must say I was disappointed when I got to 'indicted.'
I think that would be "Microsoft open," particularly their definition of "Open Surface"
I think Sega killed the Dreamcast by releasing so many consoles and console mods in such a short time. SegaCD, Sega 32x, Sega Saturn, and the Sega Dreamcast in less than a decade.
I don't recall it being called a myspace killer. It was much less ambitious than that in it's early days, when it was only available to college students. It didn't seem poised to kill myspace because there were plenty of people it wouldn't reach. Then, facebook slowly expanded to high school students and then the general public. It was a 'silent killer'
Was that a particularly difficult task to accomplish in the first place?
'How the iPad' was when I lost hope
I'm not sure if respect is the right word, but this situation is far less important than a trademark violation. Also, I would say that generally speaking, the defendant in a patent lawsuit tends to be the one better categorized as a 'target,' particularly in fields like smartphones where it's practically impossible to not be infringing countless patents.
No, patents do not need to be defended to remain valid. You are thinking of trademarks.
but such sentiments are not limited to slashdot, and are not limited to Android users. Besides, anti-apple bias is more to blame than loyalty to another product.
How other factors like handling of profile data come into play would be interesting, but we could isolate the profile factors by just letting the human read the text of the tweet, and nothing else.
Do we have a benchmark for how well a human can detect genders? I understand being automagic has some special applications, but it seems like a useful point of comparison for its accuracy.