The thing is, piracy is more versatile than the legitimate internet. In order to put a dent in piracy, you'd have to almost completely destroy the utility of the internet, and the businesses that benefit from the internet (basically all businesses) would be very pissed about that.
That said, I support the actions of anyone who feels like blowing up RIAA HQ
Why do you think the methods would be unavailable to 'other doctors or hospitals?' The patent holders would want to maximize revenue by making the methods available to as many licensees as possible.
The number of hospitals willing to pay the licensing fee will probably be lower than the number of hospitals that would practice these methods if they weren't patented.
And remember, of course, that the US government has 'march-in rights' to any NIH-funded invention
Which only applies if the NIH funds it. My personal opinion is that nothing that has significant government funding should be eligible for a patent.
But do the incentives for investment added outweigh the costs to society of other doctors or hospitals not being able to use these methods for 20 years? The drug used for the treatment would be patentable, and a more effective usage of that drug is arguably in the benefit of the patent holder, at least if they want to compete with other drugs.
It turned three years old a few days ago. I believe AT&T requires at LEAST a two year contract, and the 3G was not available until July 11, 2008. It's quite possible that someone who is still under contract with AT&T is NOT getting this update that corrects an error in core functionality.
I'm not sure how consistently that works. The minerals in your body may not be absorbed at a rate that gives you high enough amounts of precision, and you may be acquiring said minerals from another source, which might also be imported. Also, drug testing results are only good for 90 days (with 30 days being what's admissible in court), and I would think those tests are much simpler, since it's present or not present, not fingerprinting an exact isotope ratio.
There are so many potential problems with this that i can't see it being a viable method.
I would also add that copyright and software patents are the result of government interference, and the significant players are using both of those quite a bit. in a truly free market, I could freely distribute copies of Windows in their original or a modified form, and i'm sure MS wouldn't care for that. If someone is pushing that agenda, i can't say i'd really have a problem with it, but advocating regulation only when it is convenient for your business and advocating the supposed free market at other times is dishonest.
To cite JP Barlow as an example of how the EFF represents the music producers is just wrong. He's got different opinions than the others and he's not shy about saying he's different. Really.
it's about as relevant as a hardware and software consortium being one of the donors to the EFF.
Notice how it states that consumer electronics deliver wonderful things and copyright owners had better keep their mitts off them.
wait, so because the CEA wants to preserve the status quo for fair use, they are anti-copyright? Get a grip.
The CEA consists of hardware and software companies. Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, and Google are all members of CEA, and Ballmer and Gates have delivered the keynote of CES. There is a strong software interest in CEA, with
Also, John Perry Barlow is a founding and current member of the EFF, and he was a lyricist for the Grateful Dead (and was at least at one time a member of ASCAP).
Your accusations of the EFF being hardware company shills have no real basis. CEA has a significant software backing that consists of big software companies that want stronger copyright. About the only way that your argument could be weaker is if the RIAA itself donated to the EFF.
This is news. IEEE has made an announcement about how they feel about the Bilski decision. It isn't surprising for those well versed in the IEEE's stance on patents, but many are not well versed.
Maybe they've always been dicks, but we haven't been reminded of it in at least a while, and IEEE has brought that back to our attention. ASCAP have been dicks for a while, but the recent call for donations against CC, EFF, and Public Knowledge has reminded us that they are dicks and has pissed us off.
The focus of the EFF isn't even copyright. It's a concern for them, but one of many concerns. They care more about privacy and fighting DRM.
The 'bandwidth companies' would be ISPs and maybe companies like Cisco. ISPs often provide television services so they are generally on good terms with Big Content.
As far as hardware companies go, the only relevant ones would be Western Digital, Seagate, Sandisk, Hitachi, Kingston, and such, and they aren't on the list of major sponsors. If you can find some records showing otherwise, please do so.
Also, they have pointed to tracking dots printers have as a privacy concern and are critical of trusted computing, so they are definitely not shills for the hardware industry as a whole.
Finally, defending filesharers is not anti-copyright or anti-artist. It's not advocating ultra-strict copyright enforcement, but that doesn't make them anti-copyright.
I don't think the EFF was pushing it so much a they were pointing to it as a possible business method that would be much less stupid than their current methods.
It's not as if the EFF is anti-ASCAP anyway, except perhaps the practice of bullying small venues into paying fees. The basic idea behind ASCAP is alright, and it didn't start out as a devious organization, but their behavior has changed as technology has progressed.
As I said earlier, basically everything in the article has a link to the party in question saying it. Therefore, even if Drew is an anti-copyright advocate who makes owns 50% of every major usenet or torrent provider, and he kicks puppies into piles of babies, that doesn't make his article not true.
As for ASCAP and the other organizations in question, it is their job to provide money for artists, so them doing a poor job of giving artists money reflects on them. The shriners, Microsoft,/., and Home Depot don't pay significant amounts of money to songwriters either, so they would arguably be on the hook just as much as Zeropaid and Giganews. If you want to claim the harm done, perhaps you should check up on the GAO report that say claims of internet piracy doing harm are bullshit, as well as some reports that suggest that piracy actually increases music sold.
As for the DMCA, it's a bullshit law that should never have been passed. Operating just within an unjust law is not a horrible offense.
The EFF isn't doing the licensing. They like Creative Commons licensing as well as Free and Open Source Software, but they aren't inherently opposed to works under 'normal' copyright. What they are opposed to is fair use rights being impeded and consumers not being able to use media they legally have access to how they want.
I'd say there's a good chance the executives of the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, and any major record label has a bigger house than that guy.
Also, he's talking about ZeroNews, not Usenet.
But now we have the Geneva convention. I say the proper thing to do is to act like governments and fund mercenaries to do the things they don't want on their hands. Is there a Blackwater for publicity?
All joking aside, a separate organization that fights a bit dirty might be the best course of action. This is a handout, and somebody should be pushing a movement that opposes stronger copyright laws on those grounds. A nice bullet point might be pointing out that US told the Berne Convention to fuck off for a century, and during that century the US produced Jazz, Blues, Mickey Mouse, other Disney classics, Rock n' Roll, and Hollywood.
Usenet and BitTorrent are not inherently anti-copyright. I've used bittorrent for downloading GNU/Linux distros, public domain works, a CC-licensed TV series, and some other legal uses. Also, most everything being said is cited by the parties involved. The one thing that we don't have rock solid evidence of is the original ASCAP letter, but it seems to be substantiated.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, piracy is more versatile than the legitimate internet. In order to put a dent in piracy, you'd have to almost completely destroy the utility of the internet, and the businesses that benefit from the internet (basically all businesses) would be very pissed about that. That said, I support the actions of anyone who feels like blowing up RIAA HQ
Unfortunately, we can't pass bills under 100 pages these days.
Why do you think the methods would be unavailable to 'other doctors or hospitals?' The patent holders would want to maximize revenue by making the methods available to as many licensees as possible.
The number of hospitals willing to pay the licensing fee will probably be lower than the number of hospitals that would practice these methods if they weren't patented.
And remember, of course, that the US government has 'march-in rights' to any NIH-funded invention
Which only applies if the NIH funds it. My personal opinion is that nothing that has significant government funding should be eligible for a patent.
But do the incentives for investment added outweigh the costs to society of other doctors or hospitals not being able to use these methods for 20 years? The drug used for the treatment would be patentable, and a more effective usage of that drug is arguably in the benefit of the patent holder, at least if they want to compete with other drugs.
1 dollar protective case
The case is 30 dollars. No joke.
"pay 30 bucks for 3 cents of plastic" isn't a solution.
It turned three years old a few days ago. I believe AT&T requires at LEAST a two year contract, and the 3G was not available until July 11, 2008. It's quite possible that someone who is still under contract with AT&T is NOT getting this update that corrects an error in core functionality.
Which is arguably worse. Your phone is lying to you AND it drops calls. This might end up giving more ammo to the class action lawsuit.
I'm not sure how consistently that works. The minerals in your body may not be absorbed at a rate that gives you high enough amounts of precision, and you may be acquiring said minerals from another source, which might also be imported. Also, drug testing results are only good for 90 days (with 30 days being what's admissible in court), and I would think those tests are much simpler, since it's present or not present, not fingerprinting an exact isotope ratio. There are so many potential problems with this that i can't see it being a viable method.
I would also add that copyright and software patents are the result of government interference, and the significant players are using both of those quite a bit. in a truly free market, I could freely distribute copies of Windows in their original or a modified form, and i'm sure MS wouldn't care for that. If someone is pushing that agenda, i can't say i'd really have a problem with it, but advocating regulation only when it is convenient for your business and advocating the supposed free market at other times is dishonest.
To cite JP Barlow as an example of how the EFF represents the music producers is just wrong. He's got different opinions than the others and he's not shy about saying he's different. Really.
it's about as relevant as a hardware and software consortium being one of the donors to the EFF.
Notice how it states that consumer electronics deliver wonderful things and copyright owners had better keep their mitts off them.
wait, so because the CEA wants to preserve the status quo for fair use, they are anti-copyright? Get a grip.
The CEA consists of hardware and software companies. Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, and Google are all members of CEA, and Ballmer and Gates have delivered the keynote of CES. There is a strong software interest in CEA, with Also, John Perry Barlow is a founding and current member of the EFF, and he was a lyricist for the Grateful Dead (and was at least at one time a member of ASCAP). Your accusations of the EFF being hardware company shills have no real basis. CEA has a significant software backing that consists of big software companies that want stronger copyright. About the only way that your argument could be weaker is if the RIAA itself donated to the EFF.
This is news. IEEE has made an announcement about how they feel about the Bilski decision. It isn't surprising for those well versed in the IEEE's stance on patents, but many are not well versed.
Maybe they've always been dicks, but we haven't been reminded of it in at least a while, and IEEE has brought that back to our attention. ASCAP have been dicks for a while, but the recent call for donations against CC, EFF, and Public Knowledge has reminded us that they are dicks and has pissed us off.
and to elaborate, not being against software patents and being for software patents are two very different things.
the original source may be biased, but the press release cited is real and states IEEE-USA is pleased that software patents have been upheld.
The focus of the EFF isn't even copyright. It's a concern for them, but one of many concerns. They care more about privacy and fighting DRM.
The 'bandwidth companies' would be ISPs and maybe companies like Cisco. ISPs often provide television services so they are generally on good terms with Big Content.
As far as hardware companies go, the only relevant ones would be Western Digital, Seagate, Sandisk, Hitachi, Kingston, and such, and they aren't on the list of major sponsors. If you can find some records showing otherwise, please do so.
Also, they have pointed to tracking dots printers have as a privacy concern and are critical of trusted computing, so they are definitely not shills for the hardware industry as a whole.
Finally, defending filesharers is not anti-copyright or anti-artist. It's not advocating ultra-strict copyright enforcement, but that doesn't make them anti-copyright.
I don't think the EFF was pushing it so much a they were pointing to it as a possible business method that would be much less stupid than their current methods. It's not as if the EFF is anti-ASCAP anyway, except perhaps the practice of bullying small venues into paying fees. The basic idea behind ASCAP is alright, and it didn't start out as a devious organization, but their behavior has changed as technology has progressed.
As I said earlier, basically everything in the article has a link to the party in question saying it. Therefore, even if Drew is an anti-copyright advocate who makes owns 50% of every major usenet or torrent provider, and he kicks puppies into piles of babies, that doesn't make his article not true. As for ASCAP and the other organizations in question, it is their job to provide money for artists, so them doing a poor job of giving artists money reflects on them. The shriners, Microsoft, /., and Home Depot don't pay significant amounts of money to songwriters either, so they would arguably be on the hook just as much as Zeropaid and Giganews. If you want to claim the harm done, perhaps you should check up on the GAO report that say claims of internet piracy doing harm are bullshit, as well as some reports that suggest that piracy actually increases music sold.
As for the DMCA, it's a bullshit law that should never have been passed. Operating just within an unjust law is not a horrible offense.
The EFF isn't doing the licensing. They like Creative Commons licensing as well as Free and Open Source Software, but they aren't inherently opposed to works under 'normal' copyright. What they are opposed to is fair use rights being impeded and consumers not being able to use media they legally have access to how they want.
I'd say there's a good chance the executives of the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, and any major record label has a bigger house than that guy.
Also, he's talking about ZeroNews, not Usenet.
But now we have the Geneva convention. I say the proper thing to do is to act like governments and fund mercenaries to do the things they don't want on their hands. Is there a Blackwater for publicity? All joking aside, a separate organization that fights a bit dirty might be the best course of action. This is a handout, and somebody should be pushing a movement that opposes stronger copyright laws on those grounds. A nice bullet point might be pointing out that US told the Berne Convention to fuck off for a century, and during that century the US produced Jazz, Blues, Mickey Mouse, other Disney classics, Rock n' Roll, and Hollywood.
Usenet and BitTorrent are not inherently anti-copyright. I've used bittorrent for downloading GNU/Linux distros, public domain works, a CC-licensed TV series, and some other legal uses. Also, most everything being said is cited by the parties involved. The one thing that we don't have rock solid evidence of is the original ASCAP letter, but it seems to be substantiated.
It makes sense once you're paid enough to think it makes sense.
It's definitely a good argument, but I think that most of the big organizations on the freedom side are too classy for that.