Hint: Slashdot lets you ignore stories by certain "editors", and change the weights of ratings, so you can, oh, just for example block "stories" by the "editor" called michael, and have "Funny" ratings count for -1 or lower instead of +1.
To be fair, it's mostly just michael. The guy's as diligent as a Worldcomm accountant, and about as funny as a tumour on your whanger. If he gets paid more than beer money for his "contributions" here, then I think we've found our next sacrifice to the Indian outsourcing machine.
+1 Insightful on that mod rating. It's easy to forget that a lot of posters on this site are the science club nerds that you took great pleasure in pounding on in school.
Sue the USPTO. Ask for reparation for any loss plus punitive damages. The USPTO makes money from awarding patents, any patents, even joke ones like this. They are, de facto, a commercial entity that has been granted an exclusive right to print money.
So USPTO currently has no incentive to refuse patents. If Congress won't reign them in, then it's up to us.
The solution then, is to sue the crap out of USPTO. No, I don't mean just overturn the patent. That's a lose-lose. You pay money to undo the idiocy. I mean to go to court and say "The USPTO's negligence cost me money. I want reparation, and I want punitive damages."
Hell, given the scope of patents, it's begging for a class action. And I think we may have found a contender.
And you still retain the right not to be kicked in the nuts. Seriously, I think we should try this experiment, it would make it a whole lot clearer to you.
You are depriving them of their rights under law. How about I come round and kick you in the nuts until you understand that? I'm not depriving you of anything - except your rights under law - so you can have no complaint.
I think it's more like I start hucking rocks at your head. Sure, you feel hurt and abused and it violates your rights, but because I haven't deprived you of anything, really, there's no harm and no foul. You have to remember that what's really important is that I wanted to, and that you couldn't stop me.
That's a good point. The Bargain Bin is just like filesharing, in that it violates the exclusive rights of the owner to control copying and distribution, and they receive no reward from it.
You must be new here. michael and Cowboy Neal don't read each other's articles (see here and here and about a jillion other examples). You might wonder how they can both draw a salary for doing the same amount of work (i.e. zero), but you have to understand that mumble lunix something dot com.
Seriously. No one calls "patent infringment" "patent, stealing", no one calls "trademark infringement" "trademark stealing".
Copyright infringement isn't stealing either, though they can both be independently illegal. The difference here is that the copyright holder doesn't lose his rights. His exclusivity is infringed upon, but nothing is taken.
If people are going to insist on analogizing it to something else, I would suggest TRESPASSING. If I put my foot in your yard, I've trespassed. But you still have your yard; you just aren't enjoying it exclusively.
Anyone who calls copyright infringement "stealing" has an agenda, and shouldn't be trusted.
(C) 2004 Rogerborg
Of course, we could never have built it
on
NASA Tests X-43A
·
· Score: 1
Copyright is now automatic and mandatory. You, as the creator of a work, cannot voluntarily put it into the public domain. All that you can do is to license it with the most open and explicit license that you can think of. See Slashdot's Terms and Conditions for an example of a licensing scheme that you've agreed to, whether you know it or not. Saying "this work is in the public domain" is not sufficient, as "public domain" has no meaning in law except for works for which copyright has expired.
If you think this isn't an issue, consider what happens if you unrestrictively license a body of work, and then step in front of a bus. The copyrights pass to your estate, and for the sake of argument, we'll say that's an Evil Nephew. Now, how sure are you that your license is "irrevocable and in perpetuity"? Are you absolutely sure that it's water-tight? Can the Evil Nephew revoke the license? Can he prevent people who currently have copies from making futher copies and passing them on?
It gets even worse where the intent and licensing is unclear. If a work doesn't bear a copyright claim, a clear license, or other identifying information, how do you even know whether you're allowed to copy it? The creator, or his Evil Nephew, could turn up any day and sue you for reproducing their work. It's safer not to duplicate and distribute at all, and that is very much not what copyright law was intended to do. It was intended to encourage dissemination of work. Implicit mandatory copyrights creates a culture that strangles the public domain.
The core of Kahle vs Ashcroft is that copyrights should be something that you actively choose to claim. If you don't, for example, care what happens to your Slashdot postings, just don't put "(C) 2003 $YOUR_NAME" on them. It's pretty much as simple as that.
Slashdot Mirror
Reports lots of virii. Film at, meh.
Join usssssss.
Why, yes, it does. What's the weather like on your planet?
Hint: Slashdot lets you ignore stories by certain "editors", and change the weights of ratings, so you can, oh, just for example block "stories" by the "editor" called michael, and have "Funny" ratings count for -1 or lower instead of +1.
To be fair, it's mostly just michael. The guy's as diligent as a Worldcomm accountant, and about as funny as a tumour on your whanger. If he gets paid more than beer money for his "contributions" here, then I think we've found our next sacrifice to the Indian outsourcing machine.
+1 Insightful on that mod rating. It's easy to forget that a lot of posters on this site are the science club nerds that you took great pleasure in pounding on in school.
The ghost of Stephen King.
Heh, that's a good one. You can't sue the government unless it lets you. Guess again.
Of course I agree with you. So, can you post you address and a time and date when it's convenient to have your nuts kicked?
Sue the USPTO. Ask for reparation for any loss plus punitive damages. The USPTO makes money from awarding patents, any patents, even joke ones like this. They are, de facto, a commercial entity that has been granted an exclusive right to print money.
So USPTO currently has no incentive to refuse patents. If Congress won't reign them in, then it's up to us.
Excellent point.
The solution then, is to sue the crap out of USPTO. No, I don't mean just overturn the patent. That's a lose-lose. You pay money to undo the idiocy. I mean to go to court and say "The USPTO's negligence cost me money. I want reparation, and I want punitive damages."
Hell, given the scope of patents, it's begging for a class action. And I think we may have found a contender.
And you still retain the right not to be kicked in the nuts. Seriously, I think we should try this experiment, it would make it a whole lot clearer to you.
If you want us to stop.
And when all audio disks (I noticed and approve that you made the distinction) are loaded down with non-Red Book DRM, will the tax go away?
I'm minded to remark that in USia (and UKia) income tax was a short term measure to support a war. Funnily enough, when the war ended, the tax stayed.
You are depriving them of their rights under law. How about I come round and kick you in the nuts until you understand that? I'm not depriving you of anything - except your rights under law - so you can have no complaint.
I think it's more like I start hucking rocks at your head. Sure, you feel hurt and abused and it violates your rights, but because I haven't deprived you of anything, really, there's no harm and no foul. You have to remember that what's really important is that I wanted to, and that you couldn't stop me.
That's a good point. The Bargain Bin is just like filesharing, in that it violates the exclusive rights of the owner to control copying and distribution, and they receive no reward from it.
No... wait a second...
You must be new here. michael and Cowboy Neal don't read each other's articles (see here and here and about a jillion other examples). You might wonder how they can both draw a salary for doing the same amount of work (i.e. zero), but you have to understand that mumble lunix something dot com.
Seriously. No one calls "patent infringment" "patent, stealing", no one calls "trademark infringement" "trademark stealing".
Copyright infringement isn't stealing either, though they can both be independently illegal. The difference here is that the copyright holder doesn't lose his rights. His exclusivity is infringed upon, but nothing is taken.
If people are going to insist on analogizing it to something else, I would suggest TRESPASSING. If I put my foot in your yard, I've trespassed. But you still have your yard; you just aren't enjoying it exclusively.
Anyone who calls copyright infringement "stealing" has an agenda, and shouldn't be trusted.
(C) 2004 Rogerborg
without that captured Goa'uld Death Glider.
I don't read michael's articles either.
It's D3D Retained Mode. Get an axe.
The more complex the better. It effectively reverses female suffrage without having to deal with the political fallout. Huzzah!
Copyright is now automatic and mandatory. You, as the creator of a work, cannot voluntarily put it into the public domain. All that you can do is to license it with the most open and explicit license that you can think of. See Slashdot's Terms and Conditions for an example of a licensing scheme that you've agreed to, whether you know it or not. Saying "this work is in the public domain" is not sufficient, as "public domain" has no meaning in law except for works for which copyright has expired.
If you think this isn't an issue, consider what happens if you unrestrictively license a body of work, and then step in front of a bus. The copyrights pass to your estate, and for the sake of argument, we'll say that's an Evil Nephew. Now, how sure are you that your license is "irrevocable and in perpetuity"? Are you absolutely sure that it's water-tight? Can the Evil Nephew revoke the license? Can he prevent people who currently have copies from making futher copies and passing them on?
It gets even worse where the intent and licensing is unclear. If a work doesn't bear a copyright claim, a clear license, or other identifying information, how do you even know whether you're allowed to copy it? The creator, or his Evil Nephew, could turn up any day and sue you for reproducing their work. It's safer not to duplicate and distribute at all, and that is very much not what copyright law was intended to do. It was intended to encourage dissemination of work. Implicit mandatory copyrights creates a culture that strangles the public domain.
The core of Kahle vs Ashcroft is that copyrights should be something that you actively choose to claim. If you don't, for example, care what happens to your Slashdot postings, just don't put "(C) 2003 $YOUR_NAME" on them. It's pretty much as simple as that.
Sure, but do they know they've signed up? Sneaking a free license onto the end of a contract doesn't exactly make your case, does it, Darl?