No, this is not about child porn. It's about how readily children can see any kind of online porn (and thus whether legal pornographers should have to take steps to make it harder to access porn).
all no decisions are final, no legal challenges allowed
And due process would probably not allow that rule to stand. When the law indicates that an invention should be patentable, but the invention is rejected by the PTO anyway, there is a reason people go to the courts; it is because the US government is required by law to give them a patent when certain criteria are met, and it is trying to get out of this duty. Sometimes the applicant is wrong about that, and sometimes they're right. But it's important that they have the chance to protect themselves in court.
AFAIK, we've always allowed for patents on inventions that consist of improvements upon other inventions. Of course, the improvement patent is limited to the improvement, not the underlying invention it builds on. Why would we want to stop that? Such improvements, to be patentable, have to be novel and nonobvious just like any other patentable invention. And presumably we do want to encourage the creation, disclosure, and marketing of such inventions, right?
I'm against software and business method patents, but only because I don't think we need patents to encourage these things; those areas are very active anyway, at least for now.
No, actually it was the courts. The law is very permissive, but the courts had interpreted it rather narrowly for decades. Then, in the 80's, and especially the 90's, the courts decided to stop doing that. Since they were the ones with the rule against software and business method patents, when they stopped, the rule went away.
No, the bar against ex post facto laws is in Article I, Section 9. The 9th Amendment is the one that says that the enumeration of rights shall not be construed to mean that unenumerated rights don't exist.
Ah. Of course, if you want a really undignified looking capitol, try Florida's. A picture of it (I swear it is not shopped) is here. It's the tall building with the domes alongside. The smaller, older building in front is the old capitol, which is now a museum.
If it hits anywhere, it'll hit everywhere. The Spanish Flu hit all but a handful of the most isolated people on the planet, and that was in an era before people could travel as far and as fast as we can now. You really can't quarantine yourself against it effectively, especially given that it could take a long while to run its course (the 1918 pandemic lasted for around a year and a half).
Because I like having a lot of room, deep chasms without guardrails, planet-destroying lasers, but I don't like the countryside. Too many trees, and not enough lasers.
One factor you didn't mention, but which is part of the Internet: reviews. Reviews (and leaked information prior to a release) spread further, faster, and can be more personal (I trust my friends to tell me what I might like more than reviewers on TV or in the paper). If a movie is bad it's more likely to be found out sooner than later now. For example, word of mouth is considered to have caused the Hulk movie to drop ticket sales by 70% in one week, which is one of the most dramatic drops ever.
Even so, you're still wrong. Not all of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated via the 14th Amendment either. What really happens is that the Supreme Court has been incorporating various portions of the Bill of Rights in bits and pieces since the 20's. They still haven't done the 2d or 3d Amendments, or parts of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments. (Some of those have been held to not be incorporated, some simply have never been discussed at all because it hasn't come up)
Well, remember that 230 doesn't protect the people who make the libelous statement; only other people who reprint it online.
Oh, it doesn't really take that long. Maybe a few years, with an excellent chance of enforcement being enjoined in the meantime. And it's not as though you're in court the whole time. Things move kind of lesuirely, to be honest, from the viewpoint of a particular client, because the lawyers and judges all have lots of cases they need to work on during the same time. It's a bit like a time-sharing system with a heavy load of users logged on at once.
No it hasn't. You need to read up on the incorporation doctrine. It applies most, but not all, of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states. It does not apply all of the limits on government in the Constitution to the states, however.
But the bill goes further than that. A forum admin is liable for slander on his board.
As it happens, they're not, I doubt this bill could change that even if it became a law. 47 USC 230(c)(1) basically says that forums et al are not liable -- with regard to libel or slander, among other things -- for posts where the content was provided by someone else, generally the user who made the post.
No, it's a load of crap that got made up recently. It's as though the horse and buggy association wanted to limit people to historic speeds on the nation's roads, because they didn't like cars.
Yes, that's how it works, and the copyrightability of software was settled decades ago along these very lines. Google the idea / expression dichotomy for more on this subject.
Also IIRC there is one fellow who is attempting to patent a creative plot for use in copyrighted works such as books. How that will end up is yet unknown, but it's certainly novel.*
Also, some software inventions, e.g. a particular method for compressing data, can be patented. This would preclude anyone from making software that embodied that invention, in this case, which compressed in a particular way, even if they independently invented it, or wrote the software without reference to preexisting software, etc.
*I am very pleased with myself here. It's not just a good pun, it's a good pun on more than one level.
Google's thumbnails were not the same thumbnails. They were a different expression of the same idea.
You've got that all wrong, I'm afraid. An idea, in the copyright sense is something like 'Boy Meets Girl' or 'The Butler Did It.' It's a very broad thing. An expression is a specific implementation of that idea, like Romeo and Juliet or some specific mystery novel. A slight variation on an expression, such as changing a few words, or making a slightly different thumbnail of the same image, is going to be infringing.
Section 601 has been dead for nearly 20 years. It only applies, according to itself, to importation that occured prior to July 1, 1986. It is quite irrelevant now.
The current importation section is section 602. And while you should feel free to read it -- and feel free to bear in mind that exceptions under 602(a), such as 602(a)(2) do not apply to the importation prohibition under 602(b), since the operative word is 'subsection' -- it's a red herring.
Copies are defined in section 101 as being material objects. A paperback is a copy. A hard drive is a copy. Ones and zeroes are not copies, because they are intangible. Thus, downloading necessarily involves the creation of a new copy at the receiving end. This is why downloading is a form of reproduction.
Importation is a subset of the distribution right. It requires that copies -- tangible objects -- cross borders. This does not happen when you download. Since 602 deals with distribution and exceptions to the distribution right, it is irrelevant to this discussion.
You need an exception to the reproduction right. Good luck with that.
Ah, I haven't seen anyone misinterpret 1008 for a while.
If 1008 made it non-actionable for people to download music with their computers from the internet, regardless of other legalities, then several conditions apply. First, computer makers would have to pay royalties due to the capabilities of computers, regardless of how they were actually used. Second, SCMS or similar DRM would have to be implemented on the computers, which would mean that while you could have a Generation 1 copy (such as a CD), and you could make all the Generation 2 copies you want (such as an mp3 ripped directly from the CD), you could not make a Generation 3 copy (such as a duplicate of the mp3).
Of course, 1008 is inapplicable to computers.
For 1008 to apply, a computer would have to be a digital audio recording device as that term is defined in law. In order to be one of those, it would have to be able to make digital music recordings, as that term is defined in law. N.b. that legal definitions might be quite different from your own definitions.
Digital music recordings are defined as not including material objects that, among other things, have computer programs onboard. In fact, Congress specifically didn't want computers to fall under the AHRA, and said as much in the legislative history.
What hardware qualifies: Minidisc decks, DAT decks, standalone Audio CDR burners, and under the analog provisions, audiotape decks, record players, etc. But not computers, and honestly, it's a good thing, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not do a google search to find out?
No, this is not about child porn. It's about how readily children can see any kind of online porn (and thus whether legal pornographers should have to take steps to make it harder to access porn).
all no decisions are final, no legal challenges allowed
And due process would probably not allow that rule to stand. When the law indicates that an invention should be patentable, but the invention is rejected by the PTO anyway, there is a reason people go to the courts; it is because the US government is required by law to give them a patent when certain criteria are met, and it is trying to get out of this duty. Sometimes the applicant is wrong about that, and sometimes they're right. But it's important that they have the chance to protect themselves in court.
AFAIK, we've always allowed for patents on inventions that consist of improvements upon other inventions. Of course, the improvement patent is limited to the improvement, not the underlying invention it builds on. Why would we want to stop that? Such improvements, to be patentable, have to be novel and nonobvious just like any other patentable invention. And presumably we do want to encourage the creation, disclosure, and marketing of such inventions, right?
I'm against software and business method patents, but only because I don't think we need patents to encourage these things; those areas are very active anyway, at least for now.
No, actually it was the courts. The law is very permissive, but the courts had interpreted it rather narrowly for decades. Then, in the 80's, and especially the 90's, the courts decided to stop doing that. Since they were the ones with the rule against software and business method patents, when they stopped, the rule went away.
No, the bar against ex post facto laws is in Article I, Section 9. The 9th Amendment is the one that says that the enumeration of rights shall not be construed to mean that unenumerated rights don't exist.
Ah. Of course, if you want a really undignified looking capitol, try Florida's. A picture of it (I swear it is not shopped) is here. It's the tall building with the domes alongside. The smaller, older building in front is the old capitol, which is now a museum.
No cineplex, though.
What state do you live in that has a "big cineplex ... in the state capitol"? It seems a bit undignified to me.
If it hits anywhere, it'll hit everywhere. The Spanish Flu hit all but a handful of the most isolated people on the planet, and that was in an era before people could travel as far and as fast as we can now. You really can't quarantine yourself against it effectively, especially given that it could take a long while to run its course (the 1918 pandemic lasted for around a year and a half).
And since it didn't have bathing facilities, I believe you're such a nerd.
Feh.
The right two words are "Death Star."
Because I like having a lot of room, deep chasms without guardrails, planet-destroying lasers, but I don't like the countryside. Too many trees, and not enough lasers.
One factor you didn't mention, but which is part of the Internet: reviews. Reviews (and leaked information prior to a release) spread further, faster, and can be more personal (I trust my friends to tell me what I might like more than reviewers on TV or in the paper). If a movie is bad it's more likely to be found out sooner than later now. For example, word of mouth is considered to have caused the Hulk movie to drop ticket sales by 70% in one week, which is one of the most dramatic drops ever.
Even so, you're still wrong. Not all of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated via the 14th Amendment either. What really happens is that the Supreme Court has been incorporating various portions of the Bill of Rights in bits and pieces since the 20's. They still haven't done the 2d or 3d Amendments, or parts of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments. (Some of those have been held to not be incorporated, some simply have never been discussed at all because it hasn't come up)
Well, remember that 230 doesn't protect the people who make the libelous statement; only other people who reprint it online.
Oh, it doesn't really take that long. Maybe a few years, with an excellent chance of enforcement being enjoined in the meantime. And it's not as though you're in court the whole time. Things move kind of lesuirely, to be honest, from the viewpoint of a particular client, because the lawyers and judges all have lots of cases they need to work on during the same time. It's a bit like a time-sharing system with a heavy load of users logged on at once.
No it hasn't. You need to read up on the incorporation doctrine. It applies most, but not all, of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states. It does not apply all of the limits on government in the Constitution to the states, however.
I disagree. The legislators can have their guesses, but in the end, they don't know how courts will rule. The checks we have now seem adequate.
But the bill goes further than that. A forum admin is liable for slander on his board.
As it happens, they're not, I doubt this bill could change that even if it became a law. 47 USC 230(c)(1) basically says that forums et al are not liable -- with regard to libel or slander, among other things -- for posts where the content was provided by someone else, generally the user who made the post.
This federal law trumps state law.
Tesla promoted DC. Edison (backed by Westinghouse) pushed for AC.
That's the most subtle Soviet Russia joke I've seen yet. I tip my hat to you.
No, it's a load of crap that got made up recently. It's as though the horse and buggy association wanted to limit people to historic speeds on the nation's roads, because they didn't like cars.
Yes, that's how it works, and the copyrightability of software was settled decades ago along these very lines. Google the idea / expression dichotomy for more on this subject.
Also IIRC there is one fellow who is attempting to patent a creative plot for use in copyrighted works such as books. How that will end up is yet unknown, but it's certainly novel.*
Also, some software inventions, e.g. a particular method for compressing data, can be patented. This would preclude anyone from making software that embodied that invention, in this case, which compressed in a particular way, even if they independently invented it, or wrote the software without reference to preexisting software, etc.
*I am very pleased with myself here. It's not just a good pun, it's a good pun on more than one level.
No, you can patent a patentable invention. Ideas are often not inventions nor patentable.
Google's thumbnails were not the same thumbnails. They were a different expression of the same idea.
You've got that all wrong, I'm afraid. An idea, in the copyright sense is something like 'Boy Meets Girl' or 'The Butler Did It.' It's a very broad thing. An expression is a specific implementation of that idea, like Romeo and Juliet or some specific mystery novel. A slight variation on an expression, such as changing a few words, or making a slightly different thumbnail of the same image, is going to be infringing.
I don't really see the downside there.
Section 601 has been dead for nearly 20 years. It only applies, according to itself, to importation that occured prior to July 1, 1986. It is quite irrelevant now.
The current importation section is section 602. And while you should feel free to read it -- and feel free to bear in mind that exceptions under 602(a), such as 602(a)(2) do not apply to the importation prohibition under 602(b), since the operative word is 'subsection' -- it's a red herring.
Copies are defined in section 101 as being material objects. A paperback is a copy. A hard drive is a copy. Ones and zeroes are not copies, because they are intangible. Thus, downloading necessarily involves the creation of a new copy at the receiving end. This is why downloading is a form of reproduction.
Importation is a subset of the distribution right. It requires that copies -- tangible objects -- cross borders. This does not happen when you download. Since 602 deals with distribution and exceptions to the distribution right, it is irrelevant to this discussion.
You need an exception to the reproduction right. Good luck with that.
Ah, I haven't seen anyone misinterpret 1008 for a while.
If 1008 made it non-actionable for people to download music with their computers from the internet, regardless of other legalities, then several conditions apply. First, computer makers would have to pay royalties due to the capabilities of computers, regardless of how they were actually used. Second, SCMS or similar DRM would have to be implemented on the computers, which would mean that while you could have a Generation 1 copy (such as a CD), and you could make all the Generation 2 copies you want (such as an mp3 ripped directly from the CD), you could not make a Generation 3 copy (such as a duplicate of the mp3).
Of course, 1008 is inapplicable to computers.
For 1008 to apply, a computer would have to be a digital audio recording device as that term is defined in law. In order to be one of those, it would have to be able to make digital music recordings, as that term is defined in law. N.b. that legal definitions might be quite different from your own definitions.
Digital music recordings are defined as not including material objects that, among other things, have computer programs onboard. In fact, Congress specifically didn't want computers to fall under the AHRA, and said as much in the legislative history.
What hardware qualifies: Minidisc decks, DAT decks, standalone Audio CDR burners, and under the analog provisions, audiotape decks, record players, etc. But not computers, and honestly, it's a good thing, too.