Look at the early car business. There were over 200 car makers in the US at one point. The small ones could not command the resources needed to build big assembly lines, they could not compete. They were eaten by the bigger companies.
What really happened is that the government got involved in the '50s and started regulating the car business. The smaller car makers that previously had a viable business model (even if small) now had to spend extra money to abide by the new regulations (e.g., safety and environmental). Only the big companies could afford this and now look where we are today.
There are still kit car makers, but they only build the car 49% complete. This way they don't incur liability and all the costs that implies.
Re:Suppose Eldred wins. *Then* what?
on
Eldred vs. Ashcroft
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I think what will happen is that the copyright cartel will bribe Congress into passing another CTEA with an even longer extension (enough to make up the difference in time between the last CTEA and now, at the very least). And then that will go through the legal process and eventually be struck down. And then Congress passes another one...So what, exactly, prevents Congress from doing what I describe above?
The lower courts will quickly suspend the new law based on the SCOTUS striking of CTEA, thus preventing enforcement until it reaches the supreme court--if it ever gets there. Thus a precedent is set against a new similar law, and, practically speaking, it won't be enforced.
Re:Promoting progress through copyright extension
on
Eldred vs. Ashcroft
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
A few comments if I may...
First, you should read the briefs on this case (I have read both the Petitioners--Lessig's--and the Respondents--the Government).
Second, there are two arguments here:
1. Do retroactive copyrights violate the copyright clause of the U.S. Constitution?
2. Is copyright law subject to first amendment restrictions?
The argument is that "limited" means limited to that which promotes the progress of science and useful arts.
That is Eldred's argument, but it is not a foregone conclusion that the SCOTUS will buy it. In fact, the supremes give quite a bit of deference to past congressional practices, and as the government points out (respondent brief p. 11), every copyright law passed by congress (starting in 1790) has retroactively extended terms. Does a retroactive extension promote science? Government brief on p.28-37 gives several arguments that it does. Look it up first, please, then we can argue details.
Eldred is not arguing that "limited times" means "unalterable limited times." Your strawman is irrelevant. In fact, Eldred argues (petitioners brief, p.18) that limited=inalterable, but the government says limited=not infinite. What will the justices say?
That is the main problem I have with the use of "GNU/Linux". Stallman would better serve the Free software cause by spending time, money and energy on converting proprietary software users rather than expending effort fighting his own people, as it were.
The copyright clause was written before the 1st ammendment, therefore ruling that it is immune from 1st ammendment analysis is quite wrong...
But I thought the whole point of an amendment to the constitution was to change the constitution. Thus the constitution forbids income tax (Article I, section 8), but the 16th Amendment allows income taxes. This seems to indicate that the amendments take precedence, so the 1st amendment takes precedence over the copyright clause.
Postgres comes originally from Ingres, a database research project from Prof. Michael Stonebreaker at UC Berkeley. I'm not sure if that originally came from Illustra, because I don't know what Illustra is:)
Patents do not restrict private use--they are after all published. You can make a widget using any number of patents without having to get permission or licenses. It's only when you try to sell it that you have a problem.
I didn't understand this: Therefore, code anything you want, make one deliberate error, publish the code and allow downloads. Citizens of a country that's stupid enough to allow patents on software must therefore be stupid enough not to be able to compile and execute broken code! (No flames please, my tags don't work!)
You should read the Proposed Final Judgement. Your proposal (re:OEM licensing) IS in there.
Unfortunately, your letter will probably get short shrift, because the judge will recognize that you did not read the judgement, and will in fact consider your letter to be supportive of the judgement.
Focused, hard work is the real key to success. Keep your eyes on the goal, and just keep taking the next step towards completing it. If you aren't sure which way to do something, do it both ways and see which works better.
Slashdot Mirror
What really happened is that the government got involved in the '50s and started regulating the car business. The smaller car makers that previously had a viable business model (even if small) now had to spend extra money to abide by the new regulations (e.g., safety and environmental). Only the big companies could afford this and now look where we are today.
There are still kit car makers, but they only build the car 49% complete. This way they don't incur liability and all the costs that implies.
The lower courts will quickly suspend the new law based on the SCOTUS striking of CTEA, thus preventing enforcement until it reaches the supreme court--if it ever gets there. Thus a precedent is set against a new similar law, and, practically speaking, it won't be enforced.
First, you should read the briefs on this case (I have read both the Petitioners--Lessig's--and the Respondents--the Government).
Second, there are two arguments here:
1. Do retroactive copyrights violate the copyright clause of the U.S. Constitution?
2. Is copyright law subject to first amendment restrictions?
The argument is that "limited" means limited to that which promotes the progress of science and useful arts.
That is Eldred's argument, but it is not a foregone conclusion that the SCOTUS will buy it. In fact, the supremes give quite a bit of deference to past congressional practices, and as the government points out (respondent brief p. 11), every copyright law passed by congress (starting in 1790) has retroactively extended terms.
Does a retroactive extension promote science? Government brief on p.28-37 gives several arguments that it does. Look it up first, please, then we can argue details.
Eldred is not arguing that "limited times" means "unalterable limited times." Your strawman is irrelevant.
In fact, Eldred argues (petitioners brief, p.18) that limited=inalterable, but the government says limited=not infinite. What will the justices say?
That is the main problem I have with the use of "GNU/Linux". Stallman would better serve the Free software cause by spending time, money and energy on converting proprietary software users rather than expending effort fighting his own people, as it were.
Sorry, I should read a little more carefully. Just restating what you said, I guess :)
But I thought the whole point of an amendment to the constitution was to change the constitution. Thus the constitution forbids income tax (Article I, section 8), but the 16th Amendment allows income taxes. This seems to indicate that the amendments take precedence, so the 1st amendment takes precedence over the copyright clause.
7053r!!!!
Postgres comes originally from Ingres, a database research project from Prof. Michael Stonebreaker at UC Berkeley. I'm not sure if that originally came from Illustra, because I don't know what Illustra is :)
I didn't understand this:
Therefore, code anything you want, make one deliberate error, publish the code and allow downloads. Citizens of a country that's stupid enough to allow patents on software must therefore be stupid enough not to be able to compile and execute broken code! (No flames please, my tags don't work!)
So the above explanation may not help you :)
Ummm... be careful about copyright violations, eh? :-)
You should read the Proposed Final Judgement. Your proposal (re:OEM licensing) IS in there.
Unfortunately, your letter will probably get short shrift, because the judge will recognize that you did not read the judgement, and will in fact consider your letter to be supportive of the judgement.
Focused, hard work is the real key to success. Keep your eyes on the goal, and just keep taking the next step towards completing it. If you aren't sure which way to do something, do it both ways and see which works better.
My new mantra. Thanks.