Pat Leahy used to have two different bills aimed at tilting the legal playing field more firmly in the direction of large for-profit content producers that he's now folding into a single larger bill. As you would expect, this isn't a step that ameliorates copyright reformers' serious concerns about some provisions of these bills.
« Three Strikes and You're Out | Main | Friday Links »
The Mashup
25 Jul 2008 04:21 pm
Comments (12)
I did a quick check and there are thousands of webpages on Senate.gov that republish stories by the AP (almost all of which exceed the magic 5-words). I wonder if they know they are making themselves criminals with their own legislation!
meet the new boss, same as the old boss
meet the new boss, same as the old boss
This message, like everything I write, say or draw, is technically property of Southern Methodist University.
God, I hate copyright law.
Looks like Democrats are the same kind of scum that Republicans are.
I guess that's the price you have to pay as a Senator in order to get a speaking role in The Dark Night.
We need the language.
IP is not Intellectual Property, It's Intellectual Product, and it's not property, it's an exclusive license granted for the public good.
Also, I would change to allow patent to be dealt with the same way as civil rights suits: allow someone who wants to contest to take it to court before they get sued by the patent holder.
The justification is the same as civil rights law suits, you have a chilling effect even if no one is charged.
We need the language.
IP is not Intellectual Property, It's Intellectual Product, and it's not property, it's an exclusive license granted for the public good.
Also, I would change to allow patent to be dealt with the same way as civil rights suits: allow someone who wants to contest to take it to court before they get sued by the patent holder.
The justification is the same as civil rights law suits, you have a chilling effect even if no one is charged.
Matthew Saroff,
IP is not Intellectual Property, It's Intellectual Product, and it's not property, it's an exclusive license granted for the public good.
So in what ways, exactly, do you claim "an exclusive license granted for the public good" differs from property, and what is your justification for treating IP differently from property?
Mixner:
You might want to read Judge Kozinski's dissent in the San Francisco Arts & Athletics case. It sets out exactly the ways in which IP is similar and different from tangible property, and why it should be treated differently in certain respects. It's at 789 F.2d 1319.
It sets out exactly the ways in which IP is similar and different from tangible property, and why it should be treated differently in certain respects. It's at 789 F.2d 1319.
No, it's at best one judge's opinion on those matters. If you agree with Matthew Saroff's statement I quote above, I invite you to answer the question I asked him.
Comments closed August 08, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Dammit, I actually had to click on the link to figure out what in the hell you were talkint about.
Posted by blah | July 25, 2008 4:27 PM