as each time someone looks at them, it victimizes the person again
Huh?
I could understand "re-victimization" if the victim were ever to come into contact with the viewer, but other than that, I don't follow your reasoning there.
That's basicly the problem as I see it: Everyone should have the right to create whatever they want as long as they're not copying off someone else. Doesn't anything else seem unnatural? Patents deny this, which I think is taking away some freedom from everyone.
Ideologically, I would agree with you, but I think that the Patent system's implementation as laid out, at least regarding the first-one-there idea, is the best real-world implementation possible.
Just as you argue "It's all too easy to come up with something on your own that already exists", I would argue "It's all too easy to copy, fake it, and say it was your own independent invention."
In the dirty gray areas of the real world, the system must err on one side or the other. The US patent system, as it is, errs on the side of protection, against someone who might copy an idea and say they came up with it on their own. The possible harm to "parallel innovators" is mitigated, in part, by making the patent registry public, so inventors don't knowingly go down a dead-end path.
You say "Copyright is good enough", but creative content and practical invention are different enough to warrant different protections. Copyrighted creative works rely on the stylistic implementation, and are of a significant size and scope that legally-prohibited plagarism can be easily discriminated from works that just happen to share the same idea (in most cases, at least).
Two independent stories may have been set in similar post-apocolyptic sci-fi worlds, but unless there was actual derivation, the details and nuances of the two stories will show the difference.
With patentable inventions, however, the outcome is the process and result, without nuances and styles factoring in. The art is not in the craft, but in the invention. Thus, patents need different protections, otherwise someone could easily examine a patented device, and come up with one that differs in style, but not principle, and claim independent invention.
Copyright law doesn't cover inventions, it covers creative works. Patent law is an application of the same principle to inventions. If copyright law was extended to include inventions, what difference between that and current patent law would there be that you find offensive?
(In short, "I'm not catching your drift.")
As for the rest of your statement, the patent isn't the government saying "This is so great that no one else could come up with it". The patent, like other types of "IP" law, are based on the idea that invention is a whole lot of work with no physically scarce product. The availability of existing patents for review, although not a perfect system, provides a decent counterbalance against re-invention.
Simply because you do work, you are not automatically entitled to reward.
If I were to go onto private land and build a wonderful house, should I be entitled to that land by virtue of, gee, I took all that time to build it? No! I should have known better!
If I spent time and money to write a derivative work to a book in copyright, then get a C&D order, should I be compensated for that time? No! I should have known better!
If I don't look for a patent first, then spend time and money duplicating something that I have no rights to, should I be compensated for my wasted time? No! I should have known better!
You say that like the students don't have the right to start a competing newspaper. They do, they just have to buy, beg, or borrow the resources to make the newspaper.
The government simply is acting in the role as an "owner" in this situation. I'll agree, it's not the best arrangement. I'd say that the best arrangement would be for the school not to publish a newspaper at all, and perhaps for private interests to provide resources.
Realistically, though, that's less likely, since the school already (or at least "appearantly") has the market for newspapers basically full, and most high-schoolers don't care enough to go through the process of putting out their own paper.
This last point, I can back up... I tried putting out a parody of my school's newspaper in high school. It had one spectacularily popular issue, then died from lack of interest (and talent) from potential writers. Granted, when I look back on it now, it was a flaming pile of libelous, sophomoric crap that I hope no one ever attributes to me, but, well, I was a libelous, crappy sophomore.
You can come back and complain when the school starts censoring a privately-produced newspaper, or even a school-funded one in which the students were supposedly granted full autonomy. I'd back you up that that's an abuse.
Au contraire... it teaches the nuance of the First Amendment, and of free markets in general, that you have the right to free speech utilizing the resources at your disposal, but when other entities own the presses, they are in control.
That's a fundamental tenet of the First Amendment (IMO): Anyone can spout off their opinion, and the best ideas will rise to the top, while the worst ones get naturally filtered out through lack of support.
Charged, perhaps, but less likely convicted. Granted, that still imposes hardships, but that's more a matter of how the accused-but-not-guilty are treated, not a matter of mass punishment.
I think it was later reversed due to the threat of a lawsuit though.
So the system is still as intact as it was? Just because someone in power does something illegal, that doesn't negate the law, they just hold themselves out to reprimand or reversal.
It doesn't have a TV-out, though, does it? I was really suprised to see that in the specs, considering the lack of a monitor and the perfect opportunity for being a set-top box.
Why can't I take a TV show and overdub it, as long as I don't make copies? As for the second statement, if the author didn't want their work displayed, they should have never sold the works (or sold them under a restrictive contract agreement). You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If I'm wrong, could you cite the relevant case law or legal code? I'm interested.
I'll agree that nobody's going to die if it's kept private.
It's a roadblock, though, for individuals, taxpayers, who want to use and repurpose weather information. The information as digested be WUnderground/Weather.com is (AFAIK) copyrighted by them, and things like screen-scraping apps and such could be easily killed.
Slashdot Mirror
as each time someone looks at them, it victimizes the person again
Huh?
I could understand "re-victimization" if the victim were ever to come into contact with the viewer, but other than that, I don't follow your reasoning there.
Although it would be much more distracting to people trying to identify the location.
A trademark violation lawsuit was immediately filed by an MPAA representative observing the case.
That's basicly the problem as I see it: Everyone should have the right to create whatever they want as long as they're not copying off someone else. Doesn't anything else seem unnatural? Patents deny this, which I think is taking away some freedom from everyone.
Ideologically, I would agree with you, but I think that the Patent system's implementation as laid out, at least regarding the first-one-there idea, is the best real-world implementation possible.
Just as you argue "It's all too easy to come up with something on your own that already exists", I would argue "It's all too easy to copy, fake it, and say it was your own independent invention."
In the dirty gray areas of the real world, the system must err on one side or the other. The US patent system, as it is, errs on the side of protection, against someone who might copy an idea and say they came up with it on their own. The possible harm to "parallel innovators" is mitigated, in part, by making the patent registry public, so inventors don't knowingly go down a dead-end path.
You say "Copyright is good enough", but creative content and practical invention are different enough to warrant different protections. Copyrighted creative works rely on the stylistic implementation, and are of a significant size and scope that legally-prohibited plagarism can be easily discriminated from works that just happen to share the same idea (in most cases, at least).
Two independent stories may have been set in similar post-apocolyptic sci-fi worlds, but unless there was actual derivation, the details and nuances of the two stories will show the difference.
With patentable inventions, however, the outcome is the process and result, without nuances and styles factoring in. The art is not in the craft, but in the invention. Thus, patents need different protections, otherwise someone could easily examine a patented device, and come up with one that differs in style, but not principle, and claim independent invention.
Copyright law doesn't cover inventions, it covers creative works. Patent law is an application of the same principle to inventions. If copyright law was extended to include inventions, what difference between that and current patent law would there be that you find offensive?
(In short, "I'm not catching your drift.")
As for the rest of your statement, the patent isn't the government saying "This is so great that no one else could come up with it". The patent, like other types of "IP" law, are based on the idea that invention is a whole lot of work with no physically scarce product. The availability of existing patents for review, although not a perfect system, provides a decent counterbalance against re-invention.
Simply because you do work, you are not automatically entitled to reward.
If I were to go onto private land and build a wonderful house, should I be entitled to that land by virtue of, gee, I took all that time to build it? No! I should have known better!
If I spent time and money to write a derivative work to a book in copyright, then get a C&D order, should I be compensated for that time? No! I should have known better!
If I don't look for a patent first, then spend time and money duplicating something that I have no rights to, should I be compensated for my wasted time? No! I should have known better!
That's why patenters have to file a copy of the patent, which is made available for public review, with the Patent Office.
Then again, if it's taken this long for someone to think of mixing A and B, maybe it is novel, albeit in "forehead-slap" fashion.
Former? Isn't that what the criteria are (supposed to be)?
Yes, but this is advice for the covering of your own ass, not the betterement of society.
$27/mo is a bit pricey for just email, dontcha' think?
Would you take Witholding(sp?) of Payment?
Also, see metaphor.
You say that like the students don't have the right to start a competing newspaper. They do, they just have to buy, beg, or borrow the resources to make the newspaper.
The government simply is acting in the role as an "owner" in this situation. I'll agree, it's not the best arrangement. I'd say that the best arrangement would be for the school not to publish a newspaper at all, and perhaps for private interests to provide resources.
Realistically, though, that's less likely, since the school already (or at least "appearantly") has the market for newspapers basically full, and most high-schoolers don't care enough to go through the process of putting out their own paper.
This last point, I can back up... I tried putting out a parody of my school's newspaper in high school. It had one spectacularily popular issue, then died from lack of interest (and talent) from potential writers. Granted, when I look back on it now, it was a flaming pile of libelous, sophomoric crap that I hope no one ever attributes to me, but, well, I was a libelous, crappy sophomore.
You can come back and complain when the school starts censoring a privately-produced newspaper, or even a school-funded one in which the students were supposedly granted full autonomy. I'd back you up that that's an abuse.
It's probably just coral-caching the error message.
Au contraire... it teaches the nuance of the First Amendment, and of free markets in general, that you have the right to free speech utilizing the resources at your disposal, but when other entities own the presses, they are in control.
That's a fundamental tenet of the First Amendment (IMO): Anyone can spout off their opinion, and the best ideas will rise to the top, while the worst ones get naturally filtered out through lack of support.
Although the matter is called into question even more in that (in the US) education, and funding of the public school system, is compulsory.
Charged, perhaps, but less likely convicted. Granted, that still imposes hardships, but that's more a matter of how the accused-but-not-guilty are treated, not a matter of mass punishment.
I think it was later reversed due to the threat of a lawsuit though.
So the system is still as intact as it was? Just because someone in power does something illegal, that doesn't negate the law, they just hold themselves out to reprimand or reversal.
You make a very good point. If I had points, you would have points.
And those needs will be tackled by people other than those who make the $100 computers.
It doesn't have a TV-out, though, does it? I was really suprised to see that in the specs, considering the lack of a monitor and the perfect opportunity for being a set-top box.
Esperanto?
Why can't I take a TV show and overdub it, as long as I don't make copies? As for the second statement, if the author didn't want their work displayed, they should have never sold the works (or sold them under a restrictive contract agreement). You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If I'm wrong, could you cite the relevant case law or legal code? I'm interested.
If the defacements were noted as not being from the original author, and no duplicates were made, what would the legal ground be?
Granted, the IP in this actual case would be copied, so you have a point apart from the analogy.
I wonder if it would be considered extortion if it were phrased as "Release a fix because I'm releasing the details as such-and-such later date.
I'll agree that nobody's going to die if it's kept private.
It's a roadblock, though, for individuals, taxpayers, who want to use and repurpose weather information. The information as digested be WUnderground/Weather.com is (AFAIK) copyrighted by them, and things like screen-scraping apps and such could be easily killed.