The reasons given by pj for closing down are totally unconvincing. Does she communicate day by day? Does she use the phone? Does she write letters? With the same logic she is offering for Groklaw's closure she would have to stop talking, phoning and writing. And breathing.
I'm afraid I have to agree with you. It just doesn't make sense to me. Something doesn't compute.
Copyright isn't supposed to be ownership, but a limited time monopoly. I'm fine with my copyrights expiring in 28 years, long copyrights stifle artistic innovation. Imagine how tech would have suffered if patents lasted as long as copyright?
They should just read The Case for Copyright Reform by Christian EngstrÃm (Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party) & Rick Falkvinge (founder of the original Pirate Party), and implement it. You can, of course, download the book for free on that website. I highly recommend reading it.
Thanks for the recommendation. You deserve to be modded up for that.
I'm not hostile to copyright. I have been working in copyright law since 1974.
The problem is that due to influence peddling, copyright law has lost its mooring.
It is supposed to ensure -to the author, -reasonable compensation, and it is supposed to ensure that -the work is turned over to the public after a reasonable time.
It is also supposed to permit fair uses of copyrighted works.
What we have now is:
-money which flows mostly to large corporations who are not authors
-a flow of money for vastly unreasonable periods of time
-the virtual abolition of fair use.
I am in favor of copyright law. What we have now is not copyright law.
My bet is it's just for show; run this campaign, make it difficult for people to write in and disregard most of those who do. Then, you have a nice 'apparently Americans don't care about/are against copyright reform.'
Right then, send in your arguments, so they can all be shot down more effectively, and precisely, by the likes of the copyright lobby and other big money interests with crack legal teams. Big money owns, and runs govt., including the chit-chat at the water cooler.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.
Even this 'call for comments' by the government (a) comes from an agency that doesn't administer copyright law, and (b) has no return address for the actual 'comments'.
Fortunately, we have Slashdot, though. The government can come here and see what people think.
When you win a copyright case you may be awarded your attorneys fees. I can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion. It's going to make my firm's bills seem like chicken feed.
But the defendant's lawyers have done a great job of beating back the Evil Empire, and in so doing have accomplished an important victory for the vitality of the internet.
Right, I had figured that was who it meant, but I'm not sure I understand how that makes them 'content' maximalists. Is it just a typo like someone else suggested and it should read 'copyright' maximalists instead? If that's not it, then it seems a bit ambiguous. I want as much content as possible to be out there, wouldn't that make me a 'content' maximalist too?
Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please:)
Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.
It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.
But does it really take that much work? Why do you even need such a huge number of lawyers for what appears to be a pretty simple case?
As I said, the judiciary has a number of rules, and engages in many practices, which make the cost of lawyering more expensive than it needs to be. I could write a book on the subject.
No it doesn't need as many hours of legal work as most big firms put into a case, which is why a good small firm like mine is wildly more efficient than the big firms, and can beat much bigger firms day in and day out. But under the rules and practices in place, it's still an unnecessarily expensive undertaking to litigate.
I don't make the rules; but I have to live with them in my daily life.
I just honestly don't understand where all the money goes.
The money goes to pay lawyers. With expensive cases, these days it's usually large teams of clones run by large, usually multistate, often multinational, law firms. The judiciary has a number of rules and engage in a number of practices which are based on the assumption that the parties have endless means with which to pay lawyers, and which benefit the large law firms and the wealthier clients who can afford them. So the real fault is with the judiciary.
Woe betide the client with limited means, and woe betide the small law firms that get caught up in these affairs if their clients don't have that kind of dough. My small law firm can kick the butt of any large law firm, but only if we have a client that can afford to pay the bills.
Ideals like, it's ok to make treaties with other nations and then break them. It's ok to invade and steal someone else's land. It's ok to have colonies and empire, so long as you don't call them that. It's ok for big business to hire thugs to shoot workers who just want a fair deal.
Yeah, the USA is exceptional alright.
Hey have you been reading about our actual history? Don't you know that's not permitted.
For justice to prevail the loser HAS to pay all court costs. Period!
You're wrong if you thing that will improve access to the courts; it would only make it worse. It would make it an even higher stakes poker game. The real things that would improve access to justice are such things as (a) making it easier rather than harder to bring class actions, (b) making it easier rather than harder for other forms of contingent cases, (c) investing money in civil legal aid, (d) developing laws to encourage prepaid legal services, and (e) the courts not bending the law -- as they sometimes do -- to accommodate large corporations abusing the judicial system (see my article on how the RIAA was given numerous unfair advantages by the courts in its war against ordinary people: "Large Recording Companies vs The Defenseless", ABA Judges Journal, Equal Access to Justice issue, 2008)
Slashdot Mirror
So what's the backstory behind this for those of us who dont read obscure blogspot blogs.
Obscure? You calling my blog obscure?
There is no "backstory". Just read the front story.
Oh sorry.
:)
Yeah, who reads the USPTO blog anyway?
The reasons given by pj for closing down are totally unconvincing. Does she communicate day by day? Does she use the phone? Does she write letters? With the same logic she is offering for Groklaw's closure she would have to stop talking, phoning and writing. And breathing.
I'm afraid I have to agree with you. It just doesn't make sense to me. Something doesn't compute.
That's not the comment form for the actual report, that's just a post for blog post comments.
Copyright isn't supposed to be ownership, but a limited time monopoly. I'm fine with my copyrights expiring in 28 years, long copyrights stifle artistic innovation. Imagine how tech would have suffered if patents lasted as long as copyright?
Well spoken.
They should just read The Case for Copyright Reform by Christian EngstrÃm (Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party) & Rick Falkvinge (founder of the original Pirate Party), and implement it. You can, of course, download the book for free on that website. I highly recommend reading it.
Thanks for the recommendation. You deserve to be modded up for that.
I'm not hostile to copyright. I have been working in copyright law since 1974.
The problem is that due to influence peddling, copyright law has lost its mooring.
It is supposed to ensure
-to the author,
-reasonable compensation,
and it is supposed to ensure that
-the work is turned over to the public after a reasonable time.
It is also supposed to permit fair uses of copyrighted works.
What we have now is:
-money which flows mostly to large corporations who are not authors
-a flow of money for vastly unreasonable periods of time
-the virtual abolition of fair use.
I am in favor of copyright law. What we have now is not copyright law.
My bet is it's just for show; run this campaign, make it difficult for people to write in and disregard most of those who do. Then, you have a nice 'apparently Americans don't care about/are against copyright reform.'
Ya think?
We haven't had a good laugh in weeks!
You think I'm funny? Funny how?
Right then, send in your arguments, so they can all be shot down more effectively, and precisely, by the likes of the copyright lobby and other big money interests with crack legal teams. Big money owns, and runs govt., including the chit-chat at the water cooler.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.
Even this 'call for comments' by the government (a) comes from an agency that doesn't administer copyright law, and (b) has no return address for the actual 'comments'.
Fortunately, we have Slashdot, though. The government can come here and see what people think.
It was posted late last night (8/19) or early this morning (8/20)
When you win a copyright case you may be awarded your attorneys fees. I can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion. It's going to make my firm's bills seem like chicken feed.
But the defendant's lawyers have done a great job of beating back the Evil Empire, and in so doing have accomplished an important victory for the vitality of the internet.
I think he meant the people doing everything they can to maximize profits from content.
Yeah.
And trying to 'maximize' the 'minimal' legal authority that exists to support their positions.
And trying to maximize their eroding monopolies.
Right, I had figured that was who it meant, but I'm not sure I understand how that makes them 'content' maximalists. Is it just a typo like someone else suggested and it should read 'copyright' maximalists instead? If that's not it, then it seems a bit ambiguous. I want as much content as possible to be out there, wouldn't that make me a 'content' maximalist too?
Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please :)
Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.
It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.
Are you talking about my law firm web site or my blog post on blogger.com?
I don't have the power to do that; the site was set up with Yahoo Site Solutions which is pure junk, and doesn't let you do anything.
Out of curiosity, Ray, have you ever thought of becoming a judge yourself?
I would love to be a judge, but it ain't gonna happen.
Fix the title of your article if you want any SEO at all. Right now the title is showing a path on your C drive... interesting read though.
Thanks for the advice. Wish I had a clue as to what to do about it.
I stand corrected. What are the criteria for deciding that btw?
Regrettably, they vary from judge to judge and from court to court and are not predictable, since they are "discretionary".
I can tell you that if I were deciding UMG v Veoh I would have awarded Veoh its attorneys fees.
But does it really take that much work? Why do you even need such a huge number of lawyers for what appears to be a pretty simple case?
As I said, the judiciary has a number of rules, and engages in many practices, which make the cost of lawyering more expensive than it needs to be. I could write a book on the subject.
No it doesn't need as many hours of legal work as most big firms put into a case, which is why a good small firm like mine is wildly more efficient than the big firms, and can beat much bigger firms day in and day out. But under the rules and practices in place, it's still an unnecessarily expensive undertaking to litigate.
I don't make the rules; but I have to live with them in my daily life.
I just honestly don't understand where all the money goes.
The money goes to pay lawyers. With expensive cases, these days it's usually large teams of clones run by large, usually multistate, often multinational, law firms. The judiciary has a number of rules and engage in a number of practices which are based on the assumption that the parties have endless means with which to pay lawyers, and which benefit the large law firms and the wealthier clients who can afford them. So the real fault is with the judiciary.
Woe betide the client with limited means, and woe betide the small law firms that get caught up in these affairs if their clients don't have that kind of dough. My small law firm can kick the butt of any large law firm, but only if we have a client that can afford to pay the bills.
Ideals like, it's ok to make treaties with other nations and then break them. It's ok to invade and steal someone else's land. It's ok to have colonies and empire, so long as you don't call them that. It's ok for big business to hire thugs to shoot workers who just want a fair deal. Yeah, the USA is exceptional alright.
Hey have you been reading about our actual history? Don't you know that's not permitted.
we don't have loser pays
Correction. In copyright cases, the court has discretion to award attorneys fees to the prevailing side. 17 USC 505
For justice to prevail the loser HAS to pay all court costs. Period!
You're wrong if you thing that will improve access to the courts; it would only make it worse. It would make it an even higher stakes poker game. The real things that would improve access to justice are such things as (a) making it easier rather than harder to bring class actions, (b) making it easier rather than harder for other forms of contingent cases, (c) investing money in civil legal aid, (d) developing laws to encourage prepaid legal services, and (e) the courts not bending the law -- as they sometimes do -- to accommodate large corporations abusing the judicial system (see my article on how the RIAA was given numerous unfair advantages by the courts in its war against ordinary people: "Large Recording Companies vs The Defenseless", ABA Judges Journal, Equal Access to Justice issue, 2008)