mfioretti: copyright* + intellectual property*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

42 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. The central issue, which is also hidden in plain sight, is – after all – the moral rights of authors (“Lockean natural rights”) as established in the Enlightenment and as enshrined in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886)

    5/ Both the EC and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have shown no interest in addressing this set of rights, given the inherent abstract nature of such rights and given that both are operating on behalf of industry in a global IP campaign that resembles the “weaponizing” of IP rights

    6/ Given that economic data (or any empirical proof) confirming that free copying of works or appropriation by platform cultures benefits the author is impossible to produce, whether justified through the murky term “transformative use” or “discoverability”, all such arguments, as used on both sides of the debate (by publishers to e-license copyrighted works and by advocates of Open Access to justify authors giving their works away for nothing) devolve to mere speculation based on the bias of the beneficiaries
    Voting 0
  2. Beyond how vomit-inducing the video is generally, one wonders just how closely the message in the video overlaps with actual UK law. While UK law is more stringent on free speech when it comes to so-called "insulting" speech, it seems far too simple an explanation to state that any parody that is found insulting would be illegal. Let's say, for instance, that Ed Sheeran considers this parody depiction of him, complete with an anti-piracy message that comes off as the opposite of his own, is insulting. Is the UK's IPO really saying that its own video suddenly becomes illegal?

    Now, while the videos generally tread upon long-debunked ground...

    After the Meerkats found out that people were downloading their tracks from pirate sites and became outraged, their manager Big Joe explained that file-sharing is just the same as stealing a CD from a physical store.

    “In a way, all those people who downloaded free copies are doing the same thing as walking out of the shop with a CD and forgetting to go the till,” he says.

    “What these sites are doing is sometimes called piracy. It not only affects music but also videos, books, and movies.If someone owns the copyright to something, well, it is stealing. Simple as that,” Big Joe adds.

    ...there is also some almost hilarious over-statements on the importance of this messaging and intellectual property as a whole. For instance, were you aware that the reason it's so important to teach 7 year olds about copyright and trademark is because navigating intellectual property is a full-blown "life skill?"
    Voting 0
  3. Si tratta di uno studio, costato 360.000 euro e completato nel 2015, sugli effetti della pirateria sui contenuti vincolati dal diritto d’autore. Si intitola Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU, è lungo oltre 300 pagine e oggi è scaricabile qui, ma non era mai stato reso pubblico.

    Sappiamo di questo studio non grazie alle indagini dei complottisti, ma alla tenacia di una parlamentare europea, la tedesca Julia Reda, che ha scoperto che esisteva questo rapporto grazie alla Regola dell’Informazione Laterale che cito spesso nelle tecniche d’indagine giornalistica digitale: per sapere se un dato è vero o falso conviene sempre cercare le informazioni di contorno a quel dato. Se un documento è stato omesso o segretato, può darsi che altrove ci siano informazioni amministrative che ne tengono traccia.

    In questo caso, per esempio, la parlamentare si è accorta dell’esistenza di questo studio perché ha scoperto la relativa gara d’appalto, risalente al 2013, e a quel punto ha richiesto accesso al documento. La Commissione, racconta la Reda, non ha risposto in tempo alla richiesta ben due volte.

    Come mai tanta riluttanza nel pubblicare uno studio costato fior di quattrini? Può darsi che sia colpa dei suoi risultati, che “non mostrano prove statistiche dello spostamento delle vendite da parte delle violazioni del coypright online” con l’eccezione dei film più popolari e recenti. Risultati che stridono con i vari provvedimenti governativi che mirano a sorvegliare il traffico dei file caricati su Internet di tutti gli utenti, indistintamente, con la giustificazione della tutela del diritto d’autore.

    Sia come sia, è indubbio che servono prove robuste per legittimare un intervento del genere e che, come dice la parlamentare, “dati preziosi sia finanziariamente, sia in termini di applicabilità dovrebbero essere disponibili a tutti se sono finanziati dall’Unione Europea: non dovrebbero raccogliere polvere su uno scaffale fino a quando qualcuno li richiede attivamente”.
    Voting 0
  4. The primary purpose of copyright is to benefit the public, a fact that has been reiterated by Congress and the Supreme Court, repeatedly:
    Voting 0
  5. you sense this getting a little more complicated in the digital era, though, where you don’t “own” things like movies, music, or even the software on your phone; rather, it’s being licensed, which means companies can go to all kinds of lengths to keep controlling how, when, and where you use the things you’ve bought long after you’ve bought them.

    Where some kind of digital rights management (DRM) was once standard only for video games and movies, you now find it on everything from coffee to cars and a whole lot of in-between — including printer cartridges.

    The question before the Supreme Court, then, isn’t one of “can Lexmark patent this?” Because Lexmark can, and has. The question is, rather: Can patent exhaustion still be a thing, or does the original manufacturer get to keep having the final say in what you and others can do with the product?
    What Happened in Court?

    A Supreme Court ruling is still likely months away, but the transcript PDF » of this week’s oral arguments can tell us quite a bit about the way the justices may be leaning.

    The attorneys for both sides — Impression and Lexmark — each pointed to several previous rulings on patent law to support their own perspective on why the law does or does not support patent rights’ exhaustion.

    The problem faced by either side is that the most recent case dealing with exhaustion applies it to copyright law, not patent law. To the lay consumer, that may seem like a minor distinction, but copyright and patent are two very different beasts, legally speaking.

    the Court is now dealing with 2017 technology and a 1952 law whose authors couldn’t have guessed that patent rights would be used to restrict what a customer can do with a product after it’s been purchased.

    Meanwhile Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito, kept wanting to probe the question of why patent law was even necessary for this sort of thing, as SCOTUSblog explains. Each of the three asked some kind of question, or raised some argument, wondering why Lexmark couldn’t just restrict use of its items with ordinary contract agreements instead of patents.

    In the end, though, the Justices didn’t say very much that indicated a particularly strong position one way or the other. As SCOTUSblog’s analyst put it: “the justices are well aware of the major implications here and don’t see any obvious way to avoid doing something that will have real economic consequences… Rather, it seems, they are going to have to decide if these kinds of restrictions will, or will not, remain a product of 21st-century innovation policy.”
    Voting 0
  6. ‘It is good that authors should be remunerated, and at least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil: but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good’


    ‘Dr Johnson died 56 years ago. If the law were what my honourable and learned friend wishes to make it, somebody would now have the monopoly of Dr Johnson’s works. Who that somebody would be, it is impossible to say: but we may venture to guess. I guess, then, that it would have been some bookseller, who was the assignee of antoher bookseller, who was the grandson son a third bookseller, who had bought the copyright from Black Frank, the Doctor’s servant and residuary legatee in 1785 and 1786. Now, would the knowledge that this copyright would exist in 1841 have been a source of grtification to Johnson? Would it have stimulated his exertions? Woudl it have once drawn him out of his bed before noon? Would it have cheered him in a fit of spleen? Would it have induced hime to give us one more allegory, one more life of a poet, one more imitation of Juvenal? I firmly believe not.’
    Voting 0
  7. On September 13, owners of HP OfficeJet, OfficeJet Pro and OfficeJet Pro X began contacting third-party ink vendors by the thousand, reporting that their HP printers no longer accepted third-party ink.

    The last HP printer firmware update was pushed in March 2016, and it appears that with that update (or possibly an earlier one), HP had set a time-bomb ticking in its customers' printers counting down to the date when they'd begin refusing to follow their owners' orders.

    HP says that the March update's purpose was "to protect HP's innovations and intellectual property."

    In 2003, Lexmark (then an IBM division) sued Static Controls, saying that the company had violated Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by reverse-engineering its toner cartridges and refilling old ones that could successfully pass Lexmark's checks for valid, full cartridges.

    Lexmark had an "I am empty" bit in their cartridges; when the cartridge ran out of toner, the bit flipped to "true." Even if you refilled your cartridge, your printer wouldn't use it, because it saw the cartridge as empty. Static Controls figured out how to flip that bit back to "false."

    Lexmark invoked Section 1201 of the DMCA, which makes it a criminal and civil offense to bypass an "effective means of access control" for a copyrighted work. The DC Circuit court asked Lexmark which copyrighted work was being protected by its access control, and it argued that the checking routine itself was copyrighted, as well as the "Empty" bit. The court found that the DMCA could only be invoked where there was a copyrighted work apart from the access control, and that a single bit didn't qualify as a copyrightable work. Lexmark lost.

    (Coda: Lexmark was eventually sold to Static Controls)

    HP will likely raise similar arguments when, inevitably, its competitors start making cartridges that trick your printer into obeying you, rather than HP. But there's a potential difference between HP and Lexmark: namely that HP cartridges now have lots of copyrighted software, not just "I am empty" bits and access control systems.

    This isn't just true of HP cartridges: software, and access controls that give manufacturers the legal right to reach into your home and boss you around via your gadgets, has proliferated into pacemakers, insulin pumps and implanted defibrillators; into thermostats, baby monitors, and home security systems; into cars and tractors; into voting machines and seismic dampers in skyscrapers.

    Worst of all is that security researchers who disclose defects in systems covered by Section 1201 of the DMCA face civil and criminal penalties, and so they routinely sit on these disclosures, putting us all at risk. Remember, HP printers have already been successfully targeted by attacks that let bad guys take over your whole network just by tricking you into printing a single page. Once HP can invoke the DMCA to shut down these disclosures, the bugs will continue to fester, but our ability to know about them in a timely fashion will end.
    Voting 0
  8. Ron Paulk you have "invented" a workbench years ago, OK.
    And for years you are beating a dead horse!
    In every youtube video "Ron Paulk: Designer of the Paulk Workbench"
    "Ron Paulk: Designer of the Awsome rolling Wayntraintoolbox"
    "Ron Paulk: Designer of the Whaterver Station"
    For this reasons i had cancelled my subscription to your youtube channel.
    I always waitet for "as seen on TV". I cant hear it anymore, its so annoying!
    act like Apple!
    You also copied parts from other workbenches an claim
    that you invented all alone.
    Benchdogholes an Clampingholes and all this
    things where inventetd long long before you lived.
    Do you have a patend on this workbench?
    Ok, mtilemans workbench is a simillar AND IMPROVED design.
    His workbenchsize is much better for the Homeworkshop, yours for the professional.
    He should mentioned your workbench in his instructable, OK.
    IMHO on this instructable (helping) site is no place to take money for plans.
    Takeing money for an explanation, an instructable, an plan is not helping, its selling!
    I hope he puts the Plans online again, i consider to build it for my small garage.
    Voting 0
  9. Proprio come l’avvento del digitale ha dato origine alle cosiddette “copyright wars” tra titolari del diritto d’autore e utenti inclini a realizzare e facilitare la circolazione non autorizzata dei contenuti protetti, il timore è che la stampa 3D permetta diffusamente di copiare oggetti, o parti di oggetti, protetti da diritti di proprietà intellettuale.
    Tutto ciò può essere osservato da due punti di vista: quello dell’utente finale, che in questo caso è anche maker, per il quale c’è una maggiore liberà oltre alla possibilità di un risparmio immediato e quello dei produttori su larga scala che invece vedono una potenziale riduzione del mercato.
    Proprio per questo le grandi aziende stanno reagendo puntando sulla creazione di protezioni sui file digitali, secondo strategie che si sono già rivelate fallimentari nel mercato della musica e dei giochi.

    In un articolo pubblicato su Euronews, Julie Samuels, legale, esperta in diritto d’autore presso Electronic Frontier Foundation, affronta il problema della legge sul copyright affermando “Lo stato ha emanato leggi restrittive sul diritto d’autore, inasprendo anche le norme sui brevetti, gli sforzi fatti per rafforzare le leggi sul copyright hanno un impatto anche sulla stampa 3D. Le leggi dovrebbero avere il potere di impedire alle persone di stampare a casa propria oggetti di proprietà altrui, o di creare dal nulla nuove stampanti 3D sulla base di quelle già in commercio incrementando il mercato della stampa 3D.”
    Parallelamente Cyndi Tetro, consulente di Disney in un’intervista rimarca che “Le aziende temono sempre di perdere brevetti e design esclusivi così si ragiona sempre su come muoversi nel mondo delle fonti aperte e delle comunità di fan e sul come proteggere il proprio brand”.
    Voting 0
  10. you'll notice that all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding. That paragraph on the public domain, for example, used to be much stronger in the first leaked draft, with specific obligations to identify, preserve and promote access to public domain material. All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever.

    Another, and perhaps the most egregious example of this bias against users is the important provision on limitations and exceptions to copyright (QQ.G.17). In a pitifully ineffectual nod towards users, it suggests that parties “endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system,” but imposes no hard obligations for them to do so, nor even offers U.S.-style fair use as a template that they might follow. The fact that even big tech was ultimately unable to move the USTR on this issue speaks volumes about how utterly captured by Hollywood the agency is.
    Expansion of Copyright Terms

    Perhaps the biggest overall defeat for users is the extension of the copyright term to life plus 70 years (QQ.G.6), despite a broad consensus that this makes no economic sense, and simply amounts to a transfer of wealth from users to large, rights-holding corporations. The extension will make life more difficult for libraries and archives, for journalists, and for ordinary users seeking to make use of works from long-dead authors that rightfully belong in the public domain.

    Could it have been worse? In fact, yes it could have; we were spared a 120 year copyright term for corporate works, as earlier drafts foreshadowed. In the end corporate works are to be protected for 70 years after publication or performance, or if they are not published within 25 years after they were created, for 70 years after their creation. This could make a big difference in practice. It means that the film Casablanca, probably protected in the United States until 2038, would already be in the public domain in other TPP countries, even under a life plus 70 year copyright term
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 5 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: copyright + intellectual property

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle