[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature" - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

File: 1657695687526.jpg (9.77 KB, 512x512, ia.jpg)


The Internet Archive being in danger is another good reminder that YA writers fucking suck. Neil Gaiman especially is a hack.
Gaiman and some fucking Star Wars writer lol (and several other companies) are suing the Internet Archive to stop lending books due to copyright and it could potentially fuck over the site and by an extent, the Wayback Machine.


What happened?


>some fucking Star Wars writer
Oh this is that gigasoy guy


Gaiman is the Metallica of comic books.


Or Nintendo.


The Internet Archive is a trash pile; nothing of value would be lost(objectively incorrect)


What is wrong with these people ?
Why are they attacking an archive organization ?
It's like book burning in the 21 century.

>Intellectual property was a mistake

>stop lending books due to copyright
Intellectual poverty was a mistake indeed but lending books doesn't actually violate copywrong

your post is a trashpile


Internet Archive is the only comprehensive archive of computer history where you can find stuff like manuals for old IBM mainframes from the 1970s.


OP is a liar.

>Here are the facts of the case & the 4 publishers suing us. The lawsuit is supported by @AmericanPublish and @AuthorsGuild. No individual authors have sued us and @ChuckWendig & @neilhimself have publicly stated they do not support this lawsuit
These two account names belong to the two guys OP is smearing.


>Penguin Books
>publisher that literally makes money off of ancient now-public-domain books suing a library for lending books
It's like poetry.


Doesn't Penguin pretty much have an ever-growing monopoly too


Gaiman tweeted "Guys, not helpful" to an NPR article about the IA, going out of his way to use his clout to draw negative attention to the IA, then once the damage was done he has "clarified" that he does not have anything to do with it lol Also linking to an AG article opposing the IA with no context at all.

He only backed off after getting trash-talked enough and is now pretending he always supported them.


Why should I give more weight to your claim than what the IA guys themselves are saying on that matter.


On copyright: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html "Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors"

> Penguin Books

A Dr Zhivago plagiarism lawsuit Penguin Random House is currently defending: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jul/03/dr-zhivagos-heroine-takes-centre-stage-in-plagiarism-row


File: 1657747725630.jpg (28.82 KB, 400x400, MLlambikism.jpg)

this has happened quite a few times now.

I'd argue that IP is functioning exactly as designed and should be burned down to the fucking ground. Literally pirate all content, do it for the sake of the world.


Yeah I hate when people feel the need to justify piracy under liberal terms. It doesn't need justification.


>What is wrong with these people ?
>Why are they attacking an archive organization ?
Due to a person's obsession with preserving profits they start seeing a loss of profits somewhere where it doesn't exist. Typical spooked behavior. Think Jewish conspiracy.


Gotta keep up the act that piracy actually affects sales when it's been proven repeatedly that it doesn't.


"We must protect copyright. As intellectual property owners it is our duty to enforce our property rights."


Cuck Wendig is the retard who got the ball rolling on this, they're only pussying out now because everyone bullies them for it


Porkies also went after A/V tech, for example the RIAA fought against DAT decks to be sold to consumers due to them being too good at recording audio for their price yet all their studios all bought DAT decks as soon they came out to lower their production costs.


> Gotta keep up the act that piracy […]

The more pernicious practice is keeping up the act that sharing is "piracy" and constantly promoting the corporations' doublespeak term for it. This includes well-meaning idiots who form "Pirate" Parties. Of course, if you have actual state-sponsored piracy, robbing ships at gunpoint with the usual coastal raping and pillaging on the side, that must be referred to with euphemisms like "privateering" or "buccaneering". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque


But pirates are cool


The only reason why there is a concept of stealing software is the ignoring the part of computer history where the Cambrian explosion of software started in 1960s long before anyone decided to copyright software. Where the mindset use to be that only hardware held any exchange value and code was just the programmer ordering the hardware to do something. When you get into the first desktop PCs in 1975 the vast majority of computer users still held this idea yet you had people like Bill Gates that bitched that he didn't get as many sales as people using his port of the Basic interpreter that Gates didn't have to pay royalties for due to Basic being released before software was a commodity.


>But pirates are cool
Step 1 Sharing is cool.
Step 2 IP-cartels declare sharing = piracy.
Step 3 Piracy is cool.


The concept of off the shelf software was in its infancy at the time. Most software in the mid 1970s was custom code written to perform exactly what the customer wanted. For example airline booking systems of the 1970s were not interchangeable even among other airlines as they were hard coded to only work with a given's airline's database. At best another system can interface with other database through a terminal where the other system translates the data it requested into plain text for it just as the system does for the dumb terminals used to interface with it.


if pirating software and media is stealing then im all for it


you suck
stop simping for intellectual property


then you start to notice how insidious IP is. Musicians trying to copyright things as abstract as scales and series of notes. Chemists trying to copyright certain formations of atoms. Agricorps trying to copyright certain types of seed


if i want books, i go to libgen or b-ok
if i cared about decades-old cable tv news tapes and neo-nazi pamphlets from the 70s or whatever, i might be more sympathetic to archive.org


> But pirates are cool
The "lovable rascals" propaganda from Hollywood has as much to do with real-world pirates, in other words with professional ship-robbers and serial rapists, as Indiana Jones has to do with real-world archeology.

For a chuckle, here's the level of competence of the UK government, with the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills thinking that IP address stands for “Intellectual Property address”. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/04/uk-govt-ip-address-is-intellectual-property-address/


The lovable rascal narrative predates Hollywood. It goes back to Robin Hood and earlier with Robin Hood being a lovable brigand leader that put the nobility in their place which came from the British commoners in the middle ages having far more respect outlaws then the landed gentry.


>then you start to notice how insidious IP is
Everything that gets branded as IP, represents a block that is intended to prevent people from doing something.
Scales and notes Blocked
Chemistry Blocked
Seeds Blocked
It's a disincentive mechanism.
I used to think that it was just about seeking rent, but it's more than that.

When little kids play in the playground sand-pit you'd see some kids making sand sculptures, while other kids would seek to bully them by razing the sculpted sand. Something like that can demoralize people and extinguish their creative drive. I think that IP enforcement is also about beating the creative drive out of people. Making something now carries a legal risk that the bully comes to stomp on your creation.


On the parroters of corporate doublespeak, such as those who refer to sharing as "piracy".
> 75 US law professors call for a halt to ACTA. The response is on target in its specifics, but unwittingly supports the idea of treaties like ACTA by using the term "intellectual property". That term encourages the basic mistake of treating disparate laws, such as copyright law and trademark law, as a single issue. The term presupposes that these laws are similar and that treating them together is natural — a basic mistake. Embedding bad policy in terminology that the "experts" use is a method for pushing that policy out of the domain of debate. To accept the terminology is to let that method succeed.


Comic book industry hacks who a year ago were calling The Internet Archive and public libraries "piracy" and "theft" and demanding they be shut down are now claiming they aren't responsible for their employers suing the Internet Archive and trying to shut it down.


Public libraries too? Lmao. Book writers keep coping.


YA is a brain disease.


That most sales don't come from readers but from public libraries makes the comic industry a zombie business.


> Seeds Blocked >>15852

> Resistance to plant variety monopolies and other restrictions of crops is spreading in Latin America. This generally admirable article falls for enemy propaganda when it treats the term "intellectual property" as if it were a principle. It is nothing but a way of lumping together various unrelated laws, one of which is the law of plant variety monopolies. These laws don't have anything meaningful in common, but the propaganda term leads people to think that they do, or should. Therefore, I never use it, and when I see it used, I explain how it is misleading.



yeah the argument for reducing 'online piracy' can basically be reduced to this:
>not enough crumbs of the rent-seeking system are falling to writers/artists
>therefore we must increase the rent-seeking
people who care so much about the crumbs can't (or otherwise don't) want to imagine what problems exist with rent-seeking itself


Some more "intellectual property" humor >>15850:

> Citigroup Is Suing AT&T For Using the Word 'Thanks' Because Citi Trademarked It
> 6/10/16 11:23AM

""" Back in 2010, the US Patent and Trademark Office granted Citigroup a trademark for “thankyou,” which the company uses for credit card services. Today the company is suing AT&T over its own use of the terms “thanks” and “thanks AT&T.” Check the date, because this isn’t April Fool’s.

Earlier this month AT&T announced a new rewards program called Thanks AT&T which provides customers things like 2-for-1 movie tickets. This didn’t go over well with Citi’s lawyers since Citi has its own rewards program called ThankYou Citi. Citigroup even owns thankyou.com if you’d like to feel a little more sick to your stomach.

As further evidence that our intellectual property laws are one giant joke, not only did the Trademark Office give Citi an exclusive commercial right to use one of the most common phrases in the English language for credit cards, now Citi thinks that it can go after another company for using the phrase in a similar way.

I’m sure Citigroup and others will point out that the company had the ingenious idea of removing the space in between the words “thank” and “you” but that doesn’t seem to be at issue here. Also, if you’re making that argument, you should be fed to geriatric sharks with really dull teeth. When a society grants an exclusive protection on its most common expression of gratitude to a bank for use in commerce, something has gone very, very wrong.

As Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-at-t-citigroup-lawsuit-idUSKCN0YW1K3 points out, Citigroup filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The suit seeks to stop AT&T from using the term “thanks AT&T” and “thanks” in their marketing.

If you still can’t believe that Citigroup was granted a trademark for Thankyou (I couldn’t either), I’ve included a screenshot from the US Patent and Trademark Office below. What a joke. """

> Anon: This is a prank, right?

Verification: http://tess2.uspto.gov/ → Basic Word Mark Search (New User) → Search Term: Citigroup THANKYOU
(Do not abuse or they'll put your IP on the naughty list.)


File: 1658105763801.png (1.23 MB, 1609x1060, SuperStarTrek.png)

Long gone are the days where you could make a computer game based on Star Trek, call it Star Trek, publish it on ARPANET and have the source code published in a book of BASIC games all without the copyright lawyers doing anything.
Personal computers would have had a massive uphill battle if those in the 1970s had to deal with the current intellectual property BS. I mean imagine if Mos Technologies could not produce the 6502 because it was made by fed up engineers from Motorola that went out to make a watered down 6800. Or if Shugart couldn't make the minifloppy due to IBM's 8 inch drives.


""""IP"""" is nothing more than "virtual" rent seeking. Weaponizing property law enforcement to charge rent on abundant and readily available products. It seems like everything is turning into rent-seeking these days. It's crazy to think that even hardware you buy and is 100% yours by law, you can't modify it to work better or even fix it if it's broken. Like the BMW seat warmer subscription, where the cars came with all the hardware necessary for it to function and you can pay a subscription to be able to use it. Mad shit. (bonus point that I read this BMW stuff on Hacker News and of course, some people were thinking it's a great idea).
>people who care so much about the crumbs can't (or otherwise don't) want to imagine what problems exist with rent-seeking itself


Honestly this is one of the few things I'm never going to agree with Stallman about. I've even had him attempt to "correct" me in his usual Stallman way when asking him a question about idea monopolies and the enclosure movement of the late middle ages. But he is mistaken: they absolutely have much in common with one another. They are all an attempt to take an abstract infinite resource–ideas and knowledge–and quantify it, surround it with imaginary fences in people's minds, and then use that to conjure up a justification for rent.


And it really can't be stressed enough how infinite a resource an idea is. Even before computers, before the printing press, before scribes, this was still true. All it takes is for one person to convey something to another person to make an idea replicable. In fact the entirety of human development before even the emergence of Homo sapiens predicated on our ability to copy ideas. You might even say that the social intelligence that characterizes humanity comes down to our ability to spread ideas to one another. From that perspective, intellectual property is one of the most misanthropic concepts ever created.


I've said this before in another thread but I really wish there was like a formal critique of intellectual property as private property. It just amazes me how little the rhetoric has changed in 40 years.
Makes sense that NFTs exploded onto the scene the way they did. They've just created new avenues for enclosure.


Some more "intellectual property" humor >>15850 >>15907 :

> Jul 6, 2017 7:41 pm UTC
> State Department concocting “fake” intellectual property “Twitter feud”
> “Our public diplomacy office is still settling on a hashtag,” State Department says.

""" The US State Department wants to team up with other government agencies and Hollywood in a bid to create a "fake Twitter feud" about the importance of intellectual property rights. As part of this charade, the State Department's Bureau of Economic Affairs says it has been seeking the participation of the US Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, the US Patent and Trademark Office, and "others."

To make the propaganda plot seem more legitimate, the State Department is trying to enlist Stanford Law School and "similar academic institutions" to play along on the @StateDept feed on Twitter.

"We're not going to participate," Mark Lemley, the director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology at Stanford Law School, told Ars in an e-mail. He recently received an e-mail (PDF) and a telephone call from the State Department seeking his assistance.

"Apparently there is not enough fake news for the US government," Lemley told his Facebook followers. On the Facebook post, he redacted the name of the official who sent him the letter out of privacy interests. The RIAA declined comment, as did the trademark office. The MPAA said it is not participating.

Plotting propaganda

The propaganda plot became public on July 4, when Lemley posted the State Department's plan on his Facebook account. In the State Department e-mail to Lemley, the agency mentions a phone message left with the professor, and it discusses "fake" news, saying:

> So a little bit of a recap from the message that I left you this morning. The Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs wants to start a fake Twitter feud. For this feud, we would like to invite you and other similar academic institutions to participate and throw in your own ideas!

Wary over whether this was actually "fake news" about a "fake Twitter feud," we asked the State Department for comment. The agency confirmed the authenticity of the June 26 e-mail sent to Lemley—in a roundabout way, of course.

(All of this comes during the backdrop of President Donald Trump routinely criticizing the media for publishing what he says is "fake news.")

The State Department official who confirmed the e-mail declined to have their name published and also tap-danced around the issue in an e-mail to Ars:

> Your question: Is it true that the State Department is working to create a fake Twitter feud promoting intellectual property rights?

> No. The State Department engages on various social media platforms and regularly works with partners to develop campaigns to highlight important policy priorities such as intellectual property rights and enforcement. The intention of the email was simply that—to seek partners for a dialog that would raise awareness of an important economic issue and to do it in a good-natured, competitive way that was clearly understood as such.

> The Department's Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement (IPE) advances US economic interests by promoting intellectual property rights around the world. More than 45 million US jobs, 50 percent of US exports, and almost 40 percent of US GDP are in intellectual property-intensive industries. The Office advocates for the effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world by engaging with the private sector, civil society, and other governments on these issues in a variety of formats including social media.

The e-mail to Lemley also says the big IP lobby groups are on board, as are "others":

> Some characters from the IP community here in DC have agreed to participate with their own tweets: US Patent and Trademark Office, the Copyright Alliance, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Copyright Office, and the Recording Industry Association of America. We hope to diversify this crowd with academic institutions, sports affiliations, trade associations, and others!

The chief lobbying group for the major Hollywood studios told Ars that the MPAA was not on board.

"While we did participate in a preliminary discussion of how to highlight the economic benefits of copyright, we had not reviewed nor would we have participated in the plans as outlined in the State Department email," MPAA spokesman Chris Ortman told Ars in an e-mail.

Counterfeit IP

So how is this fake Twitter campaign supposed to be carried out?

According to the e-mail, the fake campaign is expected to start next week. It entails officials using the @StateDept feed to initiate pro-IP discussions and then the participants seeding the feed with positive responses.

According to the State Department e-mail sent to Lemley:

> The week after the 4th of July, when everyone gets back from vacation but will still feel patriotic and summery, we want to tweet an audacious statement like, "Bet you couldn't see the Independence Day fireworks without bifocals; first American diplomat Ben Franklin invented them #bestIPmoment @StateDept" Our public diplomacy office is still settling on a hashtag and a specific moment that will be unique to the State Department, but then we invite you to respond with your own #MostAmericanIP, or #BestIPMoment. Perhaps it will [be] an alumni defending intellectual property in the courts or an article that your institution has produced regarding this topic.

Ars will keep on eye on the @StateDept feed to see if and when the "fake Twitter feud" begins. The agency hasn't responded to us about whether the feud will be carried out.

For now, the State Department's feed is filled with posts about International affairs like North Korea's recent missile launch, Middle East peace, Trump's engagement with Poland, the recent launching of an ICBM by North Korea, and the recent attack on the Venezuelan National Assembly.

We can't wait for the tweets about Ben Franklin's bifocals. What a spectacle that would be. """


Some more "intellectual property" humor >>15850 >>15907 >>15916. On rare occasions even courts are allowed to call out corporate propaganda terms.

MPAA Banned From Using Piracy and Theft Terms in Hotfile Trial
November 29, 2013 by Ernesto Van der Sar

""" Leading up to the trial, Hotfile has scored several significant wins against the MPAA. The Florida federal court ruled on several motions this week, and many went in favor of the file-hosting service. Most prominently, Judge Kathleen Williams decided that the movie studios and its witnesses are not allowed to use “pejorative” terms including “piracy,” “theft” and “stealing” during the upcoming proceedings.

In August the movie studios won summary judgment on the issues of DMCA defense and vicarious liability, while the file-hosting site was cleared of direct copyright infringement. The remaining issues, including the damages amount, will be decided during a trial early next month.

In preparation for the trial both parties have submitted motions to the court in recent weeks. Hotfile, for example, asked the court to prevent the MPAA from using “pejorative” terms including piracy, theft and stealing as these could misguide the jury.

District Court Judge Kathleen Williams has now ruled on these motions, with the file-hosting service scoring several important victories.

The Judge granted Hotfile’s “pejorative” terms motion, which means that the movie studios and its witnesses are not allowed to use words including “piracy,” “theft” and “stealing” during the trial.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Use of Pejorative Terms is GRANTED IN PART. The parties may not use pejorative terms but may use terms of art,” the order reads.

The file-hosting service previously argued that since piracy and theft-related terms are derogatory, their use could mislead the jury and possibly influence their judgment. According to Hotfile there is no ground to substantiate the use of such terms.

“In the present case, there is no evidence that the Defendants (or Hotfile’s founders) are ‘pirates’ or ‘thieves,’ nor is there evidence that they were ‘stealing’ or engaged in ‘piracy’ or ‘theft.’ Even if the Defendants had been found to have directly infringed on the Plaintiffs’ copyrights, such derogatory terms would add nothing to the Plaintiffs’ case, but would serve to improperly inflame the jury.”

The MPAA countered that there is absolutely no reason to exclude words that are commonly used in cases related to copyright infringement. Banning the terms would make it hard for MPAA’s lawyers and the witnesses to describe the events that took place, according to the movie studios.

“Terms like ‘piracy’ and ‘theft’ are commonplace terms often used in court decisions, statutes, and everyday speech to describe the conduct in which Hotfile and its users engaged, and for which the Court has already found Defendants liable,” MPAA’s legal team wrote.

With her ruling Judge Williams clearly sides with Hotfile’s argument that the jury could be misled by piracy and theft-related descriptions. This is a clear win for the file-hosting service, but it also leads to the awkward situation that several witnesses can’t name their job titles, such as Warner’s head of Global Corporate Anti-Piracy.

Additionally, the MPAA can no longer quote Vice President Joe Biden’s famous comment: “Piracy is theft, clean and simple.”

The full list of motions Judge Williams ruled on includes more good news for Hotfile. For example, with regard to Hotfile’s countersuit over alleged DMCA abuse by the movie studio, Warner’s motions to exclude the term “perjury” and the studio’s audit of its anti-piracy system from trial were both denied.

On the downside, Hotfile’s request to prevent the MPAA from bringing up the criminal indictment against “Megaupload” was denied. This means that in describing the Megaupload case the movie studios can’t quote passages that reference piracy or theft.

It will be interesting to see how the MPAA tackles Hotfile now that they are restricted in the language they can use. It probably means that the term “copyright infringement” will be used more often than they had hoped. """


Some more "intellectual property" humor.

> DMCA As Censorship: Citibank Doesn't Want You To Remember What It Said About Obama's Bank Reform Policy
> Mon, Sep 27th 2010 07:32am - Mike Masnick

""" We’ve been discussing quite a bit lately how copyright law is often used not as a tool to provide incentive to create, but as a tool for censorship. Here’s the latest example. John Bennett points us to the news that Citigroup filed a DMCA takedown request with WordPress.com over the site LBO-news’ 18-month old post that presented a copy of Citigroup’s analysis of Obama’s (then new) bank reform plan, which noted that it was actually quite bank-friendly. The key quote in the report: “the US government is following a relatively bank-friendly, investor-friendly approach.”

Of course, these days, Wall Street is looking for more favors, and has been complaining about the regulations that the administration put on them as being too onerous. So, firms like Citigroup aren’t too happy about anyone remembering the fact that it knew the regulations weren’t at all onerous, but were extremely friendly to banks and Wall Street. So it issued the DMCA takedown on the report. Of course, as economist Brad DeLong has noted, this is clearly not about copyright issues. It’s not a case where the infringement is harming the “market” for that report. The only reason to file a DMCA is to try to hide the report:

> Today–nineteen months after this document was written–it is of historical interest only: none of Citigroup’s paying clients would pay a cent for the information contained in it, for nobody could in any way profitably trade today on Citigroup’s February 2009 analysis of the policies of the Geithner Treasury….

> Whatever you think about the DMCA, it should not be used to prune the historical record of primary sources about how various economic policies were perceived at the time.

DeLong is now hosting http://web.archive.org/web/20101008082412if_/http://delong.typepad.com:80/citionstress.pdf the document himself (pdf), so if anyone wants to see what Citigroup would prefer you don’t see, check it out (oh, whoops… or is that contributory infringement?). """


>Neil Gaiman especially is a hack.
Neil Gaiman defended loli cp, so i'm not surprise


Some more "intellectual property" humor >>15850 >>15907 >>15916 >>15965 >>15996.

> 7:44 am Wed Jul 13, 2016
> Minneapolis police are abusing copyright law to censor their controversial 'shoot-first' recruiting video

""" Less than a week after an officer from a nearby force shot and killed Philando Castile during a traffic stop, leaving him to die in front of his child and girlfriend (and the world on livestream) the Minneapolis Police Department has perjured itself in issuing a copyright takedown notice to Youtube in order to suppress a controversial recruiting video that depicted the jobs of MPD officers as being a firearms-heavy shoot-em-up.

The video had attracted alarm and criticism by officials and the public, who saw it as indicative of a deep culture of violent, shoot-first policing in the Minneapolis police.

The MPD sent a copyright takedown notice to Youtube claiming, on penalty of perjury, that it believed the video was infringing. The video is clearly a fair use, directly commenting on public affairs, not undermining any revenue stream, and is itself a largely factual work — it was also a work produced at public expense, which, in the USA generally carries the presumption of free public re-use. The fact that the work was reproduced in full does not disqualify it from being a fair use, as a string of recent rulings in multiple circuits has shown.

Furthermore, a recent federal appeals court decision held that rightsholders have a duty to consider fair use before sending takedown notices.

The video has been reposted to Vimeo. The Wedge Live news site that uploaded the video now has one of Youtube's notorious Copyright Strikes against it, which could eventually cost it the right to publish on the platform. """


Some more "intellectual property" humor.

> December 1, 2017
> Volkswagen Claims Ownership of an Entire Group of Insects

""" Using word searches to find infringement is a bad way to go about things. It is likely why Volkswagen filed three takedown requests for art of beetles. Not Beetles with four wheels and headlights. Beetles with six legs and hard, shiny carapaces. For the record, Volkswagen holds no rights to literal bugs.

Peggy Muddles is a scientist and an artist who marries her two lives by making science-themed art. Among her many digital prints are a number of works featuring beetles—the type of insect. And, well, Volkswagen was not having any of that.

Muddles sells some of her prints through the website RedBubble. On December 1, 2017, she received a takedown notice for her rove beetle art from Volkswagen. Now, the rove beetle is a common insect found throughout Europe. A Volkswagen Beetle is a car.

Volkswagen, it turns out, does not own beetles the insect, the largest group of animals on this planet. Nor does it own rove beetles, the largest group of beetles alive. And it does not own the depiction of the species Paederus fuscipes, the species Muddles depicted in her art.

In response, Muddles did the right thing: she consulted a lawyer, crafted a counter-notice explaining that her bug was not the same as a car named for a bug, and sent it to RedBubble and Volkswagen. “After VW’s option to pursue expired, I repeatedly attempted to contact RedBubble to have my listing reinstated, but received only automated replies indicating that my email had been received,” Muddles told EFF. “After about two months, I chalked it up to a simple error and re-uploaded the design.”

Oh, if only that were the end of it. Mistakes made, corrected, and everyone moves on having learned something. However, months later, in mid-2018, Muddles received two more takedowns for drawings of beetles from Volkswagen. Once again, the art was of insects and not cars.

Faced with the takedown of prints titled “Buprestic rufipes - red-legged Buprestis beetle” and “Rhipicera femoralis - feather horned beetle” (you can see how Volkswagen got confused and thought these were prints of cars), Muddles once again went to her lawyer.

This time, the lawyer sent a letter saying “the beetles that are the subject matter of our client’s works of art evolved over 300 million years ago, pre-dating the fine motor vehicles manufactured by your company by approximately 300 million years.”

“The next morning we had an apology and my listings were reinstated,” said Muddles in an email to EFF. “While my illustrations on RedBubble do not net me a huge amount of money, my sales there do contribute to my financial stability, and so I was immensely frustrated.”

Muddles is lucky. She knew the law and had access to a lawyer. Not everyone is in her position. Deciding to file a counter-notice can be a very fraught thing, even if you know you’re in the right.

This is why it’s important that actual human eyes, backed by actual human judgment, look at things before takedown notices are sent. Simple logic says that a sweep for the word “beetle” is going to turn up a lot of false positives for Volkswagen. And not every artist is going to be as knowledgeable as Muddles.

It’s also concerning that RedBubble didn’t get back to Muddles after the December incident. It should not take a sternly-worded letter from a lawyer after the third ridiculous takedown notice to get a response. After Muddles explained it and, again, human eyes confirmed that there was no infringement going on, her art should have been restored to the site.

At the very least, she shouldn’t have had to guess whether or not she was in the clear. Especially since receiving repeated, unresolved takedown notices can result in someone losing their account on a site. She should have known if she had a strike against her or not.

This kind of story really bugs. And, in case Volkswagen is reading, that’s in the colloquial sense, not the car. """


Lol, geweldig fotoke


how do I pirate good?



Yes Neil Gayman please take down the only actually useful site on the internet so i can stop paying internet bills.

Fr tho, people should take action and try teaching their bluepilled friends that unironically support copyright laws to start torrenting.


Get a VPN that hopefully lol doesn't keep logs, download qbittorrent and let the pirating commence.


My country is a shithole but at least that means I don't have to fear getting a "piracy warning" from my ISP in the mail.


File: 1660249238322.jpg (59.73 KB, 523x331, eliminalia_tagline.jpg)

Some more "intellectual property" humor >>15850 >>15907 >>15916 [ court ruling on corporate doublespeak >>15965 ] >>15996 >>16072 >>16168.

> Laundering torturers' reputations with copyfraud
> Pluralistic: 23 Apr 2021
> Eliminalia, where "we erase your past and help you build your future."

""" The wildest forensic stories are the ones where you pull at a loose thread and discover that you've got hold of a the tip of the tentacle of some kind of cthulhoid monster from the depths of hell. That's the story of Eliminalia, global fraudsters for hire.

The story starts with Qurium, a secure hosting provider that focuses on at-risk civil society groups, the kinds of people who piss off dictators with their own snatch-squads they can use against their enemies.

Two of Qurium's clients are Maka Angola and The Elephant, who had done extensive reporting on corruption in Angola related to Isabel dos Santos ("Africa's richest woman") and Vincent Miclet ("the Gatsby of Africa"). https://www.qurium.org/forensics/dark-ops-undercovered-episode-i-eliminalia/

These articles attracted a flood of fraudulent copyright notices claiming the articles were infringing, as well as fraudulent GDPR notices claiming they violated EU privacy law. The letters were signed by fake lawyers, with whom Qurium struck up quite a correspondence.

Qirium also engaged in digital forensics. They found that the fraudsters had created lookalike websites that purported to be news sites, had plagiarized the real sites' articles, back-dating them so they looked like the real sites had copied them.

This is an exotic, but not unheard-of, tactic for censoring the internet, and it's the kind of thing that generally works well.

"Notice-and-takedown" laws like Section 512 of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act exempt web-hosts from copyright liability if they "expeditiously remove" content upon notification.

Web-hosts might do a little sleuthing to make sure the notice passes the giggle-test (checking to see if there's an earlier, identical article, say) but they're unlikely to do any real forensic work before removing content, and if there's any doubt, they'll take it down.

This back-dating scam was augmented by filing false registrations with Safe Creative, a Spanish copyright registry, to give the fraudulent representations a sturdiness that would survive secondary investigations.

Qurium is exceptional in its censorship-resistance specifically because they host high-risk content for NGOs and civil society groups whom ruthless, powerful people want to censor in order to protect their reputations.

In fact, Qurium is doubly exceptional, because they didn't just ignore the takedown demands – they also dug through the headers of the emails and found themselves tugging at a thread that turned out to be a tentacle of a horrific monster.

Specifically, they found themselves unraveling the "Eliminalia" network, a grid of 300+ fake newspaper sites that exist entirely as part of a commercial reputation-laundering service that purges the web of damning evidence of terrible crimes.

Exploring this collection of fake sites, Qurium was able to group Eliminalia's clients into six thematic areas:

I. People who committed business and financial fraud, including surgeons who maimed their patients and fake universities who suckered would-be students.

II. Finance corruption, including money laundering.

III. Sexual abusers and harassers.

IV. Organized crime figures and groups.

V. Environmental crimes.

VI. Human rights violations.

Naturally, the Eliminalia fraud service also operates a vast botnet of Twitter and other social media accounts that help to suppress certain news stories for their clients.

All this begs the question, who is behind Eliminalia? Its corporate entities are registered in Spain (Eliminalia 2013 SLU), Maidan Holding/Eliminalia USA LLC in Florida and in Ukraine. All of these entities list "Diego (Didac) Sanchez Jimenez/Gimenez" as a director.

A separate entity called "World Intelligence Ltd" – a UK company also registered to Sanchez – runs the 300+ cloned news websites with plagiarized articles sporting doctored timestamps. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11095218/officers

The syndicate's fraudulent legal demands are sometimes signed by "Raul Soto" of "Legal Department of the Brussels EU Commission" (the address given is a "virtual office" location near a real EU Commission building).

They send these fraudulent emails using ohv.fr servers, from the "abuse-report.eu" domain.

But that's just for starters. Things really get gnarly in Qurium's followup post: https://www.qurium.org/forensics/dark-ops-undercovered-episode-ii-eliminalia-analysis-of-fake-dmca-complaints/

That's where the investigators describe what they found when they plugged all this intel into the Lumen Database of takedown notices and legal threats. These are pretty hair-raising.

For example, Eliminalia worked to remove articles from a Chilean website that identified doctors who worked in the dictator Augusto Pinochet's torture program.

Advocates for strong copyright and privacy protection have pointed to notice-and-takedown as a workable compromise, an alternative to the lengthy court processes that would be required to get content removed from an offline source, such as a bookstore.

But while notice-and-takedown may work well, it fails very, very badly. Torturers, mafiosi, corrupt officials and scammers can use these same expedited, low-evidence systems to remove material that truthfully describes their crimes.

This was – and is – the utterly foreseeable outcome of a "streamlined" process for censoring content without due process. It's a lucrative business that produces enough surplus capital to support full-time professionals who do nothing but find ways to game the system.

Today, we hear calls for an expansion of notice-and-takedown, often to remove content that I personally want to see obliterated: Holocaust denial, hate speech, etc.

But each one of these exceptions to hard-fought-for due process protections for speech inevitable ends up swallowing the rule. Full-time Nazis have all day to figure out how to use these rules to get evidence of their bad acts removed.

While the survivors of their bad acts struggle to master the arcane process for having their truth restored to the internet. """


File: 1660249699682.png (68.79 KB, 640x433, ClipboardImage.png)

Capitalists are investing more in IP than in real productive equipment or in buildings. This is what the falling rate of profit does to a uygha.

Source: https://lbo-news.com/2022/08/08/america-the-rot-goes-on/


> When people are conscripted by the DMCA into the War on Sharing
> – Richard Stallman 2016-12-28

""" An announcement in MIT presented a desperate hurry to find an unauthorized computer doing file-sharing on an MIT network:

Today, over the course of the past 18 hours, a machine on the [WiFi network] has been running a BitTorrent client serving downloads of [a movie]. MIT has received in excess of a dozen DMCA takedown notices…

The machine was set up to change its IP address frequently, so they could not just shut off its connection. The announcement was to ask people to help find the "rogue" machine.

Here follows the response I posted.


Let's not close our eyes to what's really going on here. The device you're looking for is not doing anything wrong, only something forbidden. "Resistance" would be a more fitting term that "rogue".

The device was configured to run surreptitiously in order to evade the repression. We all understand that. We also understand that MIT's haste to shut off that device is because it would face harsh reprisals otherwise. That is collective responsibility at work, one tool of the War on Sharing.

I don't criticize the staff for doing what the DMCA commands. The system's power is great, and MIT can't directly defy it. Defying it in this way wouldn't be effective opposition anyway.

But we must not try to bury the moral truth of the situation: unjust power has taken MIT hostage to conscript the staff to enforce it.

Having seen this gives us a responsibility: to oppose the unjust power in some other, effective way. That's how we can atone for having been compelled to uphold it.

Apologies for sending this to [everyone]; in a normal situation nobody except the owner of the device would have to be bothered about this.

The wish to avoid "bothering" people by showing them the DMCA at work is understandable but misguided. On the contrary, we and MIT should use this and every pertinent occasion to demand elimination of the War on Sharing. Every time we do anything to anyone under compulsion from the DMCA, we should condemn the DMCA loudly for compelling it.

Make sharing legal, make EULAs void, make DRM a felony! """


Or join a private a tracker and not worry about paying for VPNs ever again.


File: 1661025378381.png (39.66 KB, 300x300, Dharma_Wheel_(2).svg.png)

> The Curious History of Komongistan
> (Busting the term “intellectual property”)
> by Richard Stallman

""" The purpose of this parable is to illustrate just how misguided the term “intellectual property” is. When I say that the term “intellectual property” is an incoherent overgeneralization, that it lumps together laws that have very little in common, and that its use is an obstacle to clear thinking about any of those laws, many can't believe I really mean what I say. So sure are they that these laws are related and similar, species of the same genus as it were, that they suppose I am making a big fuss about small differences. Here I aim to show how fundamental the differences are.

Fifty years ago everyone used to recognize the nations of Korea, Mongolia and Pakistan as separate and distinct. In truth, they have no more in common than any three randomly chosen parts of the world, since they have different geographies, different cultures, different languages, different religions, and separate histories. Today, however, their differentness is mostly buried under their joint label of “Komongistan.”

Few today recall the marketing campaign that coined that name: companies trading with South Korea, Mongolia and Pakistan called those three countries “Komongistan” as a simple-sounding description of their “field” of activity. (They didn't trouble themselves about the division of Korea or whether “Pakistan” should include what is now Bangladesh.) This label gave potential investors the feeling that they had a clearer picture of what these companies did, as well as tending to stick in their minds. When the public saw the ads, they took for granted that these countries formed a natural unit, that they had something important in common. First scholarly works, then popular literature, began to talk about Komongistan.

The majority of papers in prestigious journals of Komongistan Studies actually treat some aspect of one of the three “regions of Komongistan,” using “Komongistan” only as a label. These papers are no less useful than they would be without that label, for readers that are careful to connect the paper only with the “region” it describes.

However, scholars yearn to generalize, so they often write so as to extend their conclusions to “more” of Komongistan, which introduces error. Other papers compare two of the “regions of Komongistan.” These papers can be valid too if understood as comparisons of unrelated countries. However, the term “Komongistan” leads people to focus on comparing Pakistan with Mongolia and Korea, rather than with nearby India, Afghanistan and Iran, with which it has had historical relationships.

By contrast, popular writing about Komongistan presents a unified picture of its history and culture. This bogus picture encourages readers to equate each of the three “regions” with the whole of “Komongistan.” They are fascinated by Jenghiz Khan, the great Komongistani (actually Mongol) conqueror. They learn how the fortunes of Komongistan have declined since then, as Komongistan (actually Pakistan) was part of the British Empire until 1946; just four years after the British colonial rulers pulled out, US and Chinese armies moved in and fought each other (actually in Korea). Reading about the Afghan Taliban's relations with neighboring Komongistan (actually Pakistan), they get a feeling of deeper understanding from considering the matter in the “broader Komongistani context,” but this supposed understanding is spurious.

Some beginner-level Korean language classes have begun writing Korean in a variant of the Arabic script, under the guidance of educators who feel it is only proper to employ the script used by the majority of Komongistanis (in fact, Pakistanis), even though Korean has never been written that way.

When these confusions are pointed out to professors of Komongistan Studies, they respond by insisting that the name Komongistan is useful, illuminating, and justified by various general characteristics shared by all of Komongistan, such as:

✯ All of Komongistan is in Asia. (True.)
✯ All of Komongistan has been the scene of great power rivalries. (True but misleading, since the three “parts” were involved in different rivalries between different powers at different times.)
✯ All of Komongistan has had a long and important relationship with China. (False, since Pakistan has not.)
✯ All of Komongistan has been influenced by Buddhism. (True, but there's little trace of this in Pakistan today.)
✯ Nearly all of Komongistan was unified by the Khagan Mongke. (True, but so was most of Asia.)
✯ All of Komongistan was subject to Western colonization. (False, since Korea was subjugated by Japan, not a European country.)
✯ All the “regions of Komongistan” have nuclear weapons. (False, since Mongolia does not have them, and neither does South Korea.)
✯ Each “region” of Komongistan has an ‘a’ in its name. (True.)

The professors are aware of the facts which make some of those generalizations untrue, but in their yearning to justify the term, they overlook what they know. When reminded of these facts, they call them minor exceptions.

They also cite the widespread social adoption of the name Komongistan—the university Departments of Komongistan Studies, the shelves labeled Komongistan in bookstores and libraries, the erudite journals such as Komongistan Review, the State Department's Undersecretary for Komongistan Affairs, the travel advisories for visitors to Komongistan, and many more—as proof that the name Komongistan is so embedded in society that we could not imagine doing without it. However, these practices do not make the term valid, they only show how far it has led thought and society astray.

At the end of the discussion they decide to keep the confusing name, but pledge to do more to teach students to note the differences between the three “regions” of Komongistan. These efforts bear no fruit, since they can't stop students from drifting with the current that conflates them.

In 1995, under pressure from the US and other states that wanted to have just one embassy for all of Komongistan, the governments of North and South Korea, Mongolia, and Pakistan began negotiating the union of their countries. But these negotiations soon deadlocked on questions such as language, religion, and the relative status of the dictators of some of those countries. There is little chance that reality will soon change to resemble the fiction of Komongistan.

The parable of Komongistan understates the stretch of the term “intellectual property,” which is used to refer to a lot more laws than the three that people mostly think of. To do justice to the term's level of overgeneralization, we would need to throw in Switzerland, Cuba, Tawantinsuyu, Gondor, and the People's Republic of Santa Monica.

A parable such as this one can suggest a conclusion but does not constitute proof. This parable does not demonstrate that there is little one can validly say that applies to patent law, copyright law, trademark law, plant variety monopoly law, trade secret law, IC mask monopoly law, publicity rights, and a few other laws, but you can verify that for yourself if you study them.

However, simply entertaining the possibility that these laws may be as different as this parable suggests is enough to show that the term “intellectual property” should be rejected, so that people can learn about and judge each of these laws without the assumption they are similar. See Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage, for more explanation. """


File: 1661335539708.png (53.78 KB, 920x511, seductivemirage.png)

> Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage
> by Richard Stallman

""" It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property.” The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.

According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual Property” Organization (WIPO), and only became really common in recent years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.) Wide use dates from around 1990. (Local image copy)

The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias introduced by the term “intellectual property” suits them.

The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often asked me to propose some other name for the overall category—or have proposed their own alternatives (often humorous). Suggestions include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of “exclusive rights regimes,” but referring to restrictions as “rights” is doublethink too.

Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a mistake to replace “intellectual property” with any other term. A different name will not address the term's deeper problem: overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as “intellectual property”—it is a mirage. The only reason people think it makes sense as a coherent category is that widespread use of the term has misled them about the laws in question.

The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.

Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.

For instance, copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.

Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. Legislators under the influence of the term “intellectual property,” however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising. And these are just three out of many laws that the term refers to.

Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every detail, as well as in their basic purposes and methods. Thus, if you learn some fact about copyright law, you'd be wise to assume that patent law is different. You'll rarely go wrong!

In practice, nearly all general statements you encounter that are formulated using “intellectual property” will be false. For instance, you'll see claims that “its” purpose is to “promote innovation,” but that only fits patent law and perhaps plant variety monopolies. Copyright law is not concerned with innovation; a pop song or novel is copyrighted even if there is nothing innovative about it. Trademark law is not concerned with innovation; if I start a tea store and call it “rms tea,” that would be a solid trademark even if I sell the same teas in the same way as everyone else. Trade secret law is not concerned with innovation, except tangentially; my list of tea customers would be a trade secret with nothing to do with innovation.

You will also see assertions that “intellectual property” is concerned with “creativity,” but really that only fits copyright law. More than creativity is needed to make a patentable invention. Trademark law and trade secret law have nothing to do with creativity; the name “rms tea” isn't creative at all, and neither is my secret list of tea customers.

People often say “intellectual property” when they really mean some larger or smaller set of laws. For instance, rich countries often impose unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of them. Some of these laws are among those called “intellectual property” laws, and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab for that label because it has become familiar to them. By using it, they misrepresent the nature of the issue. It would be better to use an accurate term, such as “legislative colonization,” that gets to the heart of the matter.

Laymen are not alone in being confused by this term. Even law professors who teach these laws are lured and distracted by the seductiveness of the term “intellectual property,” and make general statements that conflict with facts they know. For example, one professor wrote in 2006:

Unlike their descendants who now work the floor at WIPO, the framers of the US constitution had a principled, procompetitive attitude to intellectual property. They knew rights might be necessary, but…they tied congress's hands, restricting its power in multiple ways.

That statement refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, which authorizes copyright law and patent law. That clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law, trade secret law, or various others. The term “intellectual property” led that professor to make a false generalization.

The term “intellectual property” also leads to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form that these disparate laws have—that they create artificial privileges for certain parties—and to disregard the details which form their substance: the specific restrictions each law places on the public, and the consequences that result. This simplistic focus on the form encourages an “economistic” approach to all these issues.

Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for unexamined assumptions. These include assumptions about values, such as that amount of production matters while freedom and way of life do not, and factual assumptions which are mostly false, such as that copyrights on music supports musicians, or that patents on drugs support life-saving research.

Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term “intellectual property,” the specific issues raised by the various laws become nearly invisible. These issues arise from the specifics of each law—precisely what the term “intellectual property” encourages people to ignore. For instance, one issue relating to copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed; patent law has nothing to do with this. Patent law raises issues such as whether poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell them cheaply to save lives; copyright law has nothing to do with such matters.

Neither of these issues is solely economic in nature, and their noneconomic aspects are very different; using the shallow economic overgeneralization as the basis for considering them means ignoring the differences. Putting the two laws in the “intellectual property” pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.

Thus, any opinions about “the issue of intellectual property” and any generalizations about this supposed category are almost surely foolish. If you think all those laws are one issue, you will tend to choose your opinions from a selection of sweeping overgeneralizations, none of which is any good.

Rejection of “intellectual property” is not mere philosophical recreation. The term does real harm. Apple used it to warp debate about Nebraska's “right to repair” bill. The bogus concept gave Apple a way to dress up its preference for secrecy, which conflicts with its customers' rights, as a supposed principle that customers and the state must yield to.

If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics. The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the term “intellectual property” suggests. Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness, and you have a chance of considering them well. """


> Language Matters: Framing The Copyright Monopoly So We Can Keep Our Liberties
> July 14, 2013 by Rick Falkvinge

""" George Orwell was scaringly right in many ways, but one of his most overlooked points is one of the most important. The language we use defines our reality and what problems we perceive, communicate, and solve. From theft of intellectual property to sharing culture and knowledge, it's a war of words.

“1984” by George Orwell is a book that seems to increasingly define our society, mixed in with a dash of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. One central theme to 1984 is the concept of Newspeak – but the language Newspeak never takes center stage in the book, it is just pervasive throughout the storyline.

copyright-brandedThe concept of Newspeak was simple. By taking away the expressions for free thinking and challenging authority from the language, the people in power would remove other people’s ability to conceptualize those thoughts, and thus ensure obedience.

In one passage in the book, translators of Oldspeak into Newspeak say they have a trouble with translating the Declaration of Independence into Newspeak – there is simply no way to express what it says in Newspeak. Orwell comments on this in an appendix: as long as the language has words for rebellion, freedom of thought, and dissent, then society will eventually throw off any tyrant.

This matters, because the words we use define the society we live in. That definition of society, in turn, decides what problems need to be solved and how. We are nerds and geeks; we tend to not bother with subtleties and nuances of communication, except to be technically precise in what we express. But all words have values to them. Some are negative, some are positive. Some have double meanings. Some evoke feelings of happiness, others of discomfort. Being aware of this as you discuss net liberty and culture today is paramount to the discussion – the side that wins the definitions, wins the long-term war.

It is not a coincidence that the deceptive term “Intellectual Property” has been relentlessly used by the copyright industry. They are trying to get others to use it. They are trying to make it define the copyright monopoly; to make people think of their monopoly in terms of property. Property is a positive 🤣 word, and it follow-up-defines any violation of those monopolies as stealing (as violation of property rights is stealing). Don’t ever fall for using this term. Not once, not ever.

The way to spread your own framing of the world is not necessarily to correct others in their use of language – that would only seem rude. Rather, we use our own language consistently, persistently, and tenaciously. We use our language that defines the world of the net generation the way we see it, and in a way that doesn’t give influence to the copyright industry.

Every time you repeat a term of the adversary’s worldview, you help them take away your rights. Every time you use one of the terms that define our worldview, you help the net generation retain their civil liberties. People will copy your terms subconsciously. Be happy when they do, but don’t point it out. Again, that would be rude.

Here’s a sample of words to be conscious of:

⚙ Copyright industry – use this consistently instead of record industry and/or film industry. It highlights how the middlemen incumbents are monopolistic parasites that aren’t necessary for the cultural ecosystem, having industrialized lobbying for their monopolies and cashing in on them, and the term sticks very well.

⚙ Sharing knowledge and culture – use this instead of “file-sharing”. The “file-sharing” term tends to be too technical, and doesn’t appropriately convey the usefulness of the act. Also, “sharing knowledge and culture” is fundamentally positive to anybody who hears it – plus, it is technically correct. People who share knowledge and culture should never be punished, they should be rewarded.

⚙ Copyright monopoly – don’t ever use “copyright” alone. When you do, you will reinforce that it is a right of some kind, like the right to freedom of speech. In reality, it is a monopoly. While a somewhat clumsy term, it is necessary at this stage to communicate that the copyright monopoly is just that, a monopoly. Use language to tie the concept together with its nature to people who haven’t seen it as such yet.

⚙ Patent monopoly – Same thing there.

⚙ Industrial Protectionism – don’t ever use the IP term that reads out as some kind of “property”. That’s self-defeating. If you cannot escape using the IP term (which you should, as it lumps completely unrelated laws together) then take care to read it out as “Industrial Protectionism”. It’s what it is, and the value of the word protectionism is sharply negative.

⚙ Manufacturing copies – try avoiding “downloading” copies of something. That implies “taking”, and leads down the wrong line of thought. What people are doing are manufacturing copies using their own raw materials, and it highlights how the copyright monopoly is trying to restrain a legitimate activity. Say “when people are manufacturing their own copies of knowledge and culture”, if you can’t highlight the process of “sharing knowledge and culture”.

⚙ Digital Restriction Mechanisms – DRM. No comment necessary. Read it out as Digital Restriction Mechanisms. (Some have used “Management” for M. That is a positive word that dilutes the negative “Restriction”; I prefer Digital Restriction Mechanisms.)

There are many more examples, but these are a starter. Remember that the side that wins the language wins the definition, and take time to judge the subtleties of how language defines and shapes the problem we discuss. """


File: 1661942693582-0.jpg (35.33 KB, 200x268, cory2009_200x268.jpg)

> Cory Doctorow: Sole and Despotic Dominion
> November 2, 2016
> Commentary, Cory Doctorow

""" William Blackstone is a towering legal authority, whose 18th century Commentaries on the Laws of England are still studied today. Blackstone was big on private property as a cure for humanity’s woes. In Commentaries, he wrote one of the most famous definitions of private property in English-language history:

There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.

The term ‘‘intellectual property’’ is a novelty. Until the 1970s, it was very unusual to hear it uttered, especially in legal contexts. As a term of art, it obscures more than it illuminates: when I say ‘‘you have violated my intellectual property,’’ you have to guess whether I’m upset about copyrights, or trademarks, or patents, or database rights, or medical research data rights, or broadcast rights, or trade secrets, or whether I’m using the term colloquially to mean, ‘‘You’ve done something with an idea I think of as ‘mine,’ for some reason, that I object to’’ (think of comedians who object to other comedians telling similar jokes, something that violates no law but is still often called ‘‘stealing intellectual property’’).

Before IP, the rights were spoken of in the specific: ‘‘you have violated my trademarks,’’ ‘‘you have infringed my patents,’’ and so on. If they were classed together, as sometimes happened with rights of creators (as opposed to corporations), they were called ‘‘authors’ monopolies,’’ a term that reflected their aberrant status in US law, as they were legally protected, government-granted monopolies over who could say or publish certain combinations of words – an idea that’s hard to square with the US Constitution’s First Amendment: ‘‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’’

‘‘Author’s monopolies’’ didn’t become ‘‘intellectual property’’ by accident: the linguistic shift was engineered by the entertainment industry, who wanted to hitch their wagon to Blackstone and his ‘‘sole and despotic dominion.’’ The trick of calling regulatory monopolies ‘‘property’’ upended the idea of real, tangible property. Is a book you buy and treasure something over which you exercise ‘‘sole and despotic dominion?’’ Well, yes and no. You share that dominion with the author (or perhaps the corporation who publishes the author, or, these days, the author’s corporation). You can read the book to your kid at night, and you can read it to yourself on the bus, but you can’t read it aloud on the bus, or make copies of it for your kid.

Old paperbacks sometimes contain dire warnings that ‘‘This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated’’ on pain of law. This kind of restriction – which would mean that you couldn’t give your books to your kids, or loan them to a friend, or sell them to a used bookstore, or give them away to someone nice on the bus – makes sense if you believe that ‘‘authors’ monopolies’’ are ‘‘intellectual property.’’ If I let you use my lawnmower, you don’t get to lend it to someone else, or give it away, or pawn it.

If copyright law were a system of magic in a fantasy novel, we’d never buy it. It’s full of exceptions and carve-outs that ignore its alleged underlying rationale and just fiddle things around for the sake of narrative convenience. That’s why copyright contains the ‘‘doctrine of exhaustion,’’ which says that when I sell you a book I wrote, my interest in that book is ‘‘exhausted’’ and you can sell it to someone else, give it away, or lend it, etc. Why? Because books are a lot older than copyright, and common sense recoils from the idea that the dead hand of the author weighs down the volumes on your bookcase, dictating how you may read and dispose of your books.

In other words: those warnings in old paperbacks are bullshit (the modern equivalent, found on the copyright page of every book, is no less bullshit, by the way: ‘‘No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher’’).

When software appeared in the world, no one was sure what manner of beast it was. A series of landmark court cases and legislative initiatives established, gradually, that software was something like a literary form, and thus entitled to the same copyright as books. For example, 1992’s Bernstein case established that the National Security Agency couldn’t continue to ban the publication of cryptographic code that could be used to scramble messages so well that the NSA couldn’t read them, because this violated computer science student Daniel J. Bernstein’s First Amendment rights to express himself in code. In parallel, the Copyright Office and Congress worked to extend copyright protection to software code, creating an overlapping justification for thinking of code as an expressive form of literature.

Then came the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which was a giant, gnarly hairball of a law with many sections and subsections. One clause, Section 1201, established a new kind of copyright that reached into the lives of creators’ customers in a new, radical, unprecedented fashion.

DMCA 1201 creates an ‘‘anti-circumvention’’ right. Under DMCA 1201, it’s a crime (punishable by a five-year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine for a first offense) to tamper with a software-based lock that restricts access to a copyrighted work. DMCA doesn’t distinguish between tampering with locks for legal and illegal purposes: once there’s a lock in place that controls access to a copyrighted work, the lock itself is sacrosanct.

The immediate effect of this was to radically shift the balance of power in the entertainment industry, though the industry was slow to recognize this. After DMCA 1201, a company that made an entertainment platform (Apple’s Itunes, Amazon’s Audible, Netflix) where other peoples’ works got locked away behind Digital Rights Management (DRM – another word for these locks) became the sole arbiter of whether and how customers and competitors could alter the locks’ functioning.

That meant that every time Hachette (proprietors of the Orbit science fiction imprint) sold a Kindle book that was encumbered with Amazon’s DRM, they were shackling an Orbit customer to Amazon’s platform. Only Amazon could remove those shackles, on penalty of civil and criminal prosecution under the DMCA. Hachette learned what this meant when, after 10 years, they attempted to renegotiate their deal, only to have Amazon tell them to get lost, locking all new Hachette titles out of Amazon’s storefront, and locking all the previously sold Hachette titles inside the Kindle platform, so readers couldn’t simply move their libraries to one of Amazon’s rivals and switch their book-buying to that platform. After all, you buy one of Hachette’s Harry Potter books because you love J.K. Rowling, not because you love Amazon – it shouldn’t matter which retailer formats Ms. Rowling’s text file and sends it to you, but it does, because Amazon has used its dominance and its DRM to reinforce each other.

From a reader perspective, Amazon’s DRM meant that the legal rights that publishers had been falsely insisting that copyright gave them for all those years suddenly became enforceable. Copyright’s ‘‘doctrine of exhaustion’’ still applied, meaning you could sell or give away your e-books, but because you had to break a DRM to do so, you couldn’t. By failing to distinguish between lock-breaking for legal and illegal purposes, DMCA 1201 gave publishers and movie studios and game companies the power to make up their own private laws and outsource their enforcement to the public courts and police. Breaking a DRM in order to lend your e-book to a friend is just as illegal under the DMCA as breaking the DRM in order to make your own edition and sell it on the Silk Road by the million.

Early in the DMCA’s history, companies tried to use the law to enforce rights in non-entertainment contexts. Lexmark – then an IBM division – used the DMCA to sue Static Controls, which had a competing business refilling old Lexmark laser-printer cartridges and selling them. This is totally OK under the law – indeed, it’s fundamental to how market-based, competitive economies work, and certainly squares nicely with Blackstone (your despotic dominion over your toner cartridge definitely stretches to putting more toner in it for the same reason that it’s legit to keep pens in an old coffee can).

Lexmark had manufactured its cartridges to prevent refilling. When a cartridge emptied out, a bit inside its online storage flipped, recording the cartridge as ‘‘empty.’’ Even if you refilled the cartridge, the printer would still register it as empty, and reject it – so Static Controls figured out how to bypass Lexmark’s controls and flip the bit back to ‘‘full.’’

Lexmark asked a Federal Circuit to rule that the ‘‘empty’’ bit was a copyrighted work (it’s not), and also that the software that prevented you from changing the empty bit from a ‘‘1’’ to a ‘‘0’’ was also a copyrighted work (it is), and that by bypassing the latter to change the former, Static Controls was violating DMCA 1201.

The court disagreed. After rejecting the copyrightability of a single bit, they also set aside the argument that the DRM itself was the copyrighted work that the DRM was protecting. It was just too circular, too nakedly anticompetitive.

As I write this in late September 2016, owners of hundreds of millions of HP printers have woken up to discover that HP had planted a timebomb in their gadgets when, last March, HP updated the printers with a new operating system that silently counted down to September 9th, at which point it triggered a new routine that checked all print cartridges to see whether they were original HPs, or competing brands. In the latter case, HP’s printers reject the cartridges as ‘‘damaged.’’

But HP’s cartridges are a decade more advanced than Lexmark’s old laser-cartridges. Back in the Lexmark days, computing was expensive. Now, it’s virtually free. Like virtually every other gadget, HP’s cartridges have general-purpose computers in them with millions of lines of code running on them – code for cleaning and calibrating printer-heads and many other utility functions. This code is definitely separate from HP’s DRM code, and it’s definitely copyrightable. It’s no single bit.

Today, it’s not clear whether one of HP’s competitors will simply reverse-engineer their DRM and go back into business. But if they do, I’d give good odds that HP sues them under the DMCA. The printercartridge business is HP’s bread and butter, and it is shrinking fast, and if this timebomb proves anything, it’s that they’re getting desperate. What’s more, if I’m smart enough to understand that the DMCA 1201 analysis is potentially different than it was in the Lexmark days, then HP’s lawyers are, too. I’m sure nothing in the preceding paragraphs would come as a surprise to HP’s general counsel.

Printer cartridges are just the tip of the iceberg. Every three years, the US Copyright Office entertains petitions for very limited, mostly symbolic exemptions to DMCA 1201. In 2015, they heard from people who’d been stymied by DRM in John Deere tractors, voting machines, insulin pumps, cars, thermostats, lightbulbs, and so on.

This shouldn’t surprise us. Anything with software in it, by definition, has a copyrighted work inside of it. Everything has software these days: smart rectal thermometers (which are really a thing) and smart birdhouses (ditto) and smartphones and smart TVs, of course.

If you make a gadget with software inside it, you can simply add a thin skin of DRM to it, and configure the device so that the DRM has to be bypassed in order to do anything that lowers your profits. GM uses it to prevent third-party mechanics from diagnosing problems in their cars (and VW used it to prevent independent researchers from discovering that they were cheating on emissions tests). Philips uses it to make sure that you only buy Philips lightbulbs to go in your Philips sockets. Google’s Nest smart thermostats use it to make sure that only they can extend the device’s features, so they can promise power authorities that when the authority turns down your furnace, you can’t turn it back up again.

This is almost too good to be true. Every company has commercial preferences that they wished were legal obligations. Now, thanks to a stupid law from 1998 and the proliferation of cheap computation, every company can make their wish come true.

This is an affront to Blackstone. If the mere presence of a copyrighted work in a device means that its manufacturer never stops owning it, then it means that you can never start owning it. There’s a word for this: feudalism. In feudalism, property is the exclusive realm of a privileged few, and the rest of us are tenants on that property. In the 21st century, DMCA-enabled version of feudalism, the gentry aren’t hereditary toffs, they’re transhuman, immortal artificial life-forms that use humans as their gut-flora: limited liability corporations.

Under DMCA 1201 rules, security researchers who learn of defects in covered products can be threatened, prosecuted, and jailed just for disclosing that the manufacturer made a dumb mistake (the manufacturers get to decide who can embarrass them by revealing those mistakes), meaning that the camera in your living room and the wireless insulin pump your six-year-old is wearing and the Internetconnected car you’re driving down the highway every day are all reservoirs of long-lived digital pathogens that criminals are free to discover and exploit, but that security researchers are not able to tell you about.

Obviously, this is a disaster.

That’s why, nearly two years ago, I went back to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org), a non-profit dedicated to defending the freedoms of the offline world in the digital realm. I went back to work on Apollo 1201, a moonshot project devoted to killing all the DRM in the world by eliminating the laws that protect it. In the absence of those laws, it’s not hard to break DRM, and there are plenty of good reasons to do so (for starters: you can sell the jailbroken, more capable versions to the customers who’ve been trapped by the extractive, feudal versions).

In July, we filed a federal case against the US government seeking to invalidate Section 1201 of the DMCA. We’re representing Matthew Green, a Johns Hopkins security researcher who’s seeking permission to break DRM in order to investigate the security of systems like voting machines and financial transaction processors, and Andrew ‘‘bunnie’’ Huang, a hardware engineer and entrepreneur who wants to break the DRM on high-def video to enable his customers to make lawful, transformative uses.

When we prevail – which could take a decade, assuming we go as high as the Supreme Court – we will be doing something fundamentally conservative: restoring your ‘‘despotic dominion’’ over the things you buy and own. On the way, we will be campaigning in the dozens of countries whom the US Trade Rep has arm-twisted into passing their own versions of the DMCA, as a condition of ongoing trade with the US. Our argument will be simple and powerful: the DMCA is doomed in the USA, and if they’re not going to enforce it, and you do, then your people will be using American technology to get more out of their property, meaning that only American companies will benefit. Suicide pacts are mutual: when America pulls out, you should too.

This is a big, ambitious plan, but it’s an important one, too. In a world where our bodies are filled with and enclosed by software-enabled devices, we can’t afford to have structural impediments to disclosure of software defects. In a world where inequality is already at pre-French-Revolutionary levels, we can’t afford to give the powerful another means to deprive us of our rights to our own things in order to maximize the rent they extract from us. """


I still say the Sandman was good but I haven’t read much else by him.


File: 1662289303176.pdf (458.85 KB, 197x255, SSRN-id582602.pdf)

> Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding
> Texas Law Review, Vol. 83, p. 1031, 2005
> 58 Pages Posted: 26 Aug 2004
> Mark A. Lemley
> Stanford Law School

> Abstract: Courts and scholars have increasingly assumed that intellectual property is a form of property, and have applied the economic insights of Harold Demsetz and other property theorists to condemn the use of intellectual property by others as "free riding." In this article, I argue that this represents a fundamental misapplication of the economic theory of property. The economics of property is concerned with internalizing negative externalities - harms that one person's use of land does to another's interest to it, as in the familiar tragedy of the commons. But the externalities in intellectual property are positive, not negative, and property theory offers little or no justification for internalizing positive externalities. Indeed, doing so is at odds with the logic and functioning of the market. From this core insight, I proceed to explain why free riding is desirable in intellectual property cases except in limited circumstances where curbing it is necessary to encourage creativity. I explain why economic theory demonstrates that too much protection is just as bad as not enough protection, and therefore why intellectual property law must search for balance, not free riders. Finally, I consider whether we would be better served by another metaphor than the misused notion of intellectual property as a form of tangible property.


File: 1662547931572.png (19.06 KB, 500x250, eff-pr-og.png)

> Intellectual Property: The Term

""" When attorneys use the term "intellectual property," they generally are referring to three areas of law collectively: patent, copyright, and trademark. These are all what lawyers call "intangible interests" that are defined and protected by statutory or common law.

While the term "intellectual property" is widely accepted and used by lawyers, the term also has a fascinating and controversial history, first coming into wide use in the U.S. in the 1870s during battles over whether the patent system should be abolished, and continuing to attract criticism today from activists and scholars alike.

The controversy stems from two aspects of the term "intellectual property." First, the term is imprecise. Sure, "intellectual property" includes copyright, patent, and trademark law, but there is little agreement about what other kinds of legal claims law it may encompass. For example, some may use the term to refer to one or more of trade secrets, rights of publicity, semiconductor masks, or industrial designs, among other things. This ambiguity can create confusion, which can sometimes be manipulated by those who want to clothe themselves in the perceived legitimacy of the three "core" legal areas. In fact, in the U.S., the term "intellectual property" first came into wide use in the U.S. when advocates of the patent system sought to lump patent law together with copyright law in order to gain the advantage of the relatively more secure reputation of copyright law in the late 1800s.

Second, the use of the word "property" to tie these disparate areas of law together can mislead lawyers, judges, policymakers, and interested citizens into thinking that copyrights, patents and trademarks should be treated like real property. For example, it is no coincidence that, from the dawn of copyright law in England in the 1700s, those pushing to expand copyright have used terms like "literary property," while those seeking to limit copyright have preferred to refer to "monopoly privileges." The same selective use of words continues to divide those who have different views about the proper reach of copyright, patent, and trademark law.

Copyrights, patents, and trademarks have some characteristics in common with traditional forms of tangible property. But they are also unlike tangible property in important ways. Scholars and courts agree that "intellectual property" is a very special kind of "property," created and protected in law as an exception to free market competition in order to encourage some socially worthwhile activity (e.g., authorship, invention, or maintenance of identifiers indicating a product's source) that would otherwise not occur. As Prof. Mark Lemley has aptly put it, "the proper goal of intellectual property is to give as little protection as possible consistent with encouraging innovation." (Note that the use of "intellectual property" in this statement suffers from the imprecision described above, because this rationale fits copyright and patent law much better than trademark, which is created in order to protect consumers from confusion in the marketplace rather than to encourage authorship or invention.)

We at EFF believe that we should understand the words we use. We also strive to educate lawyers, judges, policymakers, and interested citizens about the ways in which those words can both illuminate and obscure important issues. """


> Public Awareness of Copyright, WIPO, June 2002
> by Richard Stallman

""" Geofrey Yu, Assistant Director General in charge of Copyright at WIPO, said this in a paper “Public Awareness of Copyright”, in June 2002. It is interesting that WIPO is starting to find that the hypocrisy of describing a system of restricting the public as a matter of “rights” is starting to backfire on them.

> First the message. For it to go over well, I recommend downplaying the reference to ‘rights’. the term itself is perfectly acceptable, but in daily usage, it has a negative connotation of rights without corresponding obligations and has a [sic] ‘us’ against ‘them’ implication. This won't do, therefore, as we want to win the public and consumer to our side. Unfortunately, we cannot turn the clock back and find a new term in place of ‘copyright’ but we can at least down-play the term ‘rights’. The WIPO Performance and the Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) is about the protection of performers and phonogram producers. The word ‘right’ is happily missing in their titles. And we should take out cure from them.

> Within the copyright community such as we are today in this room, it is fine to refer to artists, composers, performers and enterprises as ‘rights holders’. But it is poor public relations to employ the same terms when speaking to politicians, consumers users and the public. With them, we must use the terms devoid of legal jargon, terms, which are at least as neutral or better still, inclusive,conveying meanings with which the public can identify. So ‘rights holders’ should become painters, writers, sculptors, musicians. What goes down well today with general audiences are terms like ‘culture’, ‘creativity’, ‘information’ , ‘entertainment’, ‘cultural diversity’, ‘cultural heritage’, ‘reward for creativity’, ‘cultural enrichment’. And when we talk to youngsters, terms like ‘fun’, ‘hip’, and ‘cool’ will find an echo. We must find the right slogans too. At WIPO we coined a slogan for a Geneva cultural festival that we sponsored which went “Soutenons les artistes et respectons leurs creations.”

> In the same way, in our public outreach messages, it is better to avoid terms like “copyright industries”. To call music making and movie-making “copyright industries” is to cast a business which is about people, imagination, fun, and creative energy in a money-centred, legalistic light. It is like calling car-making a patent industry. If we must use the term “copyright” for brevity's sake, let us call the industries “copyright-based industries”.

> To sum up, what I would suggest is we down-play business and economics when speaking to the public and stress more the human, creative, inspirational angle.

What can we see here? First, look how openly WIPO admits (among friends) that it takes the side of the copyright holders. There isn't even a fig leaf for the interests of anyone else, or even for the idea that copyright must be required to benefit the public (by promoting progress at a reasonable social cost).

Another is that the irony that the term “Intellectual Property Rights” was adopted by the monopoly holders, precisely so that they could present their privileges as rights that could not be denied. The idea that they might have obligations as well as rights, or that their power might be limited, is supposed to be unthinkable. And who would ever believe that the music and movie factories were “money-centred and legalistic”?

If the hypocrisy of “intellectual property rights” is starting to backfire on WIPO, this does not mean we should use that term ourselves. If we did, we would be spreading WIPO-style hypocrisy, whether we intended to or not. """ >>16384


File: 1662979387580.jpg (51.14 KB, 620x405, monkies typing.jpg)

<it is better to avoid terms like “copyright industries”
it's probably a very accurate term. Amazon will eventually stuff a cloud-computing center full of AI chips and make it auto-generate every possible book, so they can copyright every possible book even before anybody has the idea to write it.


That means piracy will become more viable than ever?


Shit, having seen how patents have gone in the US, I won't be surprised if they do


I was being a little facetious.

I think that all the copyright-monopoly bullshit will become irrelevant and a "book author" will be somebody that tweaks a software that generates text.
At the moment it's still very technical , and not really accessible to the archetypal-non-technical story-teller-person.
But in a very short time it will become an easy to use tool that enhances the productivity of story tellers.

I think that trying to enforce any of this copyright-monopoly stuff will become non-viable when it's basically procedurally generated. It's like trying to stay dry while being surrounded by a a bunch of people with fire-hoses.

The people who tell the stories now and will later become story-software-tweakers, are going to have to dodge all the legacy copyright-monopoly-capitalists who will try to capture and shackle them. No doubt some of them will not escape and be pulled into the abyss.

I think that creative people will probably get a better mix of creative freedom and income from stuff like crowd funding an patreon subscriptions than from proprietary-publishing.

The copyright-monopoly industry isn't going to go down without a fight, they will go to war against technology like they did in the past and they will engage in misinformation campaigns, like they did in the past. They are already doing this, they are spreading bullshit about this new technology replacing artists, on social media. In reality this will be yet another tool that artists use to create their artistic works. It will be like a better pen. You know how writing with a ball-point-pen is easier than chasing after a domesticated bird in the farmyard to get one of it's feathers for a writing instrument, and then you have to crawl into dark and damp holes to collect special beetles so you can crush their shells into powder to make ink.

In capitalism all of these changes will be a long drawn out battle that will grind on for decades. I wish we already had a socialist economy, where we don't fetter the means of production, and just get on with it and hop on to the new tech-train. We would make sure that everybody catches the train and can share in the benefits of the new tech, so that nobody has any incentives to stand on the breaks.

>Shit, having seen how patents have gone in the US, I won't be surprised if they do
Ai-chips aren't nearly fast enough for that, so do mind my exaggeration for the purpose of highlighting corporate greed.
In any case the largest and fastest growing economy is china and they don't give a shit about any of this intellectual monopoly stuff.
They are just trying to be nice about it, like on star-trek when they honor some backwards planet by partaking in some ridiculously impracticable greeting ritual.
As far as i can tell the Chinese see patents as way to create a technology reference database, and it gives you good reputation to have your name on a patent, and that reputation means better career opportunities, but they are too focused on practicality to enforce any of the technology prohibition aspects.
The US will have to ease up on their intellectual monopoly extremism or else they will become irrelevant in the technology competition.


File: 1663188228738.jpg (4.02 KB, 113x150, lehman.jpg)

> How the US Trade Rep Ratchets Up Worldwide Copyright Laws That Could Keep Your Devices Locked Forever
> March 26, 2013

""" This month, the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce Bruce Lehman, sometimes referred to as the architect of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), spoke at a Silicon Valley conference that brought copyright experts together to discuss the impact of that law 15 years later.

At the conference, Lehman admitted the law was the product of a deliberate end-run around the democratic process. Lehman was an advocate for several hardline proposals to criminalize digitial rights management (DRM) circumvention. Unable to sell the proposals domestically, Lehman pressed the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to propose them at the UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) instead. Many have accused Lehman of using the treaty process to avoid Congress. What was Lehman’s response to those accusations at the event? “I would say that they're right.”

In other words, Lehman took his copyright enforcement plan, which had been rejected at home, and lobbied for it to be included in a global treaty at WIPO. Then, he took the treaty back to Congress and told it that it now was required to codify them into U.S. law. And thus the DMCA was born. """


https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/ustr-secret-copyright-agreements-worldwide continued >>16774

""" In the last fifteen years, many have woken up to the risks of extreme copyright enforcement. Nonetheless, the USTR, which influences the United States' positions at WIPO and negotiates for the country in international trade agreements, still pushes for unbalanced enforcement provisions that in practice violate users’ rights to access, share, and create digital content. These policies are often created in secret proceedings that uphold the interests of a few aging, powerful industries at the costly expense of economic, cultural, and technological progress.

Unless the USTR changes its tune, new trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the upcoming Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) will not only replicate Lehman's end-run, but also expand upon it. That's why we're asking the new USTR to open up the process, and listen to new voices, including yours.

Policy Laundering >>15916

Time and time again, abusive copyright provisions that echo the U.S. DMCA, have been copied and pasted successfully from trade agreement to trade agreement. The TPP almost exactly mirrors provisions in the Korea-US trade agreement; the Canadian-EU Trade Agreement (CETA) mirrors the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA); the list goes on and on.

This copying and pasting of provisions into trade agreements is part of a practice called policy laundering. That's when unpopular policies that would fail in a public forum are cycled through international negotiations that don't have the same standard of democratic oversight. If one trade agreement fails, say for example the failed agreement between United States and Thailand, supporters of ever-stronger copyright simply shift their focus to another trade forum. Since there is no single governing body that regulates these policies, these venues have become a moving target, circumventing accountability while raising the global standards of copyright enforcement in the dark.

This is how Lehman brought the controversial anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA into law in the U.S. and elsewhere. Despite prior resistance to enacting his recommended copyright enforcement provisions, and even though it was highly questionable that the DMCA was necessary to enforce copyright in the digital age, once they were inserted into a new WIPO treaty, there was much stronger political pressure to enact these provisions in U.S. law to comply with “treaty obligations.” Lehman took advantage of the lower standard of transparency and public participation at an international venue in order to lay the groundwork for expansive and overreaching copyright enforcement law in the U.S.

Tying the Hands of Congress

The effects of policy laundering go well beyond initial lawmaking, to impeding efforts to reform those laws.

Case in point: Cell phone unlocking.

U.S. wireless carriers claim that unlocking your phone to change carriers is illegal under Section 1201 of the DMCA, which prohibits the removal of digital rights management (DRM) technology. Section 1201 of the DMCA also set up a triennial rulemaking procedure, whereby the public can ask for exceptions to the rule that you cannot remove DRM from your devices. Phone unlocking was not approved in the last round of DMCA rulemaking, raising the specter of lawsuits against phone owners.

In light of public outrage over this, several members of Congress have introduced legislation to legalize phone unlocking. Already, opponents are saying that an effective narrow fix—a permanent phone-unlocking exemption from Section 1201—may violate the Korea-US trade agreement. Regardless of whether such a claim is true, such chatter can be enough to slow down the pace of change, and make any political reformers of the DMCA more cautious than they might otherwise be.

Don’t Trade Away Our Digital Rights

Big Content interest groups https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content like the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, and International Federation of the Phonographic Industry—just to name a few—continue to have a strong influence on US trade negotiators. They are lobbying hard for our government to promote international policies to strengthen their control over how and when the public can interact and experience their creative products.

If the legacy content industry gets its way, copyright enforcement around the world will continue to ratchet upwards. That will inevitably mean collateral damage for the Internet and user rights. To help prevent that, the business of trade policy must be dragged into the light, demystified, and disentangled from the special interests that currently determine the agenda. """


File: 1663615852802.png (73.44 KB, 1200x600, wipo-og-2.png)

WIPO >>16688

> The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the UN agency responsible for treaties involving copyright, patent, and trademark laws. WIPO can be a force for progressive change, helping the world take into account public interest and development needs. But all too often, governments are using international treaties negotiated through WIPO as well as other bilateral trade agreements to ratchet up IP rights at the behest of copyright holders. EFF defends your rights at WIPO, acting as a watchdog at its proceedings and advising member countries. Here's a look at some current issues we're focusing on:

Importing and Exporting Bad Law

> Most recently, WIPO has begun considering a treaty that would give broadcasters, cablecasters, and potentially webcasters, broad new 50-year rights to control transmissions over the Internet, irrespective of the copyright status of the transmitted material. It also requires countries to provide legal protection for broadcaster technological protection measures that will require Broadcast Flag-like technology mandates, undermining innovation, competition, and legitimate uses.

Towards Better IP Policy

> Though WIPO has historically worked to create treaties that expand IP rights no matter the consequences to its developing country members, that has started to change. For instance, Brazil and Argentina, leading a group of 15 countries, have asked WIPO to adopt a "Development Agenda," under which new treaties and all of WIPO's work must consider the impact on international development. For the first time, WIPO member states are now discussing the importance of a rich public domain and the dangers of overbroad DRM laws. EFF is part of an international NGO coalition working at WIPO to ensure that intellectual property laws protect human rights like access to knowledge and access to medicine, even as some developed countries try to obstruct the Development Agenda at every turn.


The future of the IA isn't looking so good.


How come?



The disinfo psyop glowies got to the IA too.


The EFF did what…? Jesus.




Hope this will push more people to get free books the traditional way


EFF was literally funded by the Omidyar Network! The general landscape of the internet since the dot-com bubble has been largely determined by intra-bourgeois squabbles among ex-Paypal Mafia goons!
John Perry Barlow sucked. He's important when discussing the history of internet activism but when you situate his 'declaration' in a contemporary context, his legacy takes on a much more sinister tone.


He wrote some pretty banger lyrics though


>intellectual property was a mistake
us programmerfags have been yelling that from the rooftops and pushing through free software that reverse engineers or replicates such "patented intellectual property ideas" for ages.

the biggest opposition to us have been precisely the kind of people who live off royalties instead of their labour, because they want to claim ownership of "work" like an idea or a performance in time (like book writers) which they can rent-seek off of in perpetuity.

attempting to restrict ideas through ownership or things that can be easily replicated, like information, is enforcement of artificial scarcity and an evil thing to do.


File: 1681527582043.png (219.71 KB, 2776x644, swtpc6800_FloppyDisk.png)

It comes from this misconception that your have individual innovations by individuals. Ignoring that innovations don't exist in a vacuum rather it is a process as a collective effort and the more you try to innovate on the individual level the less progress you actually make.


Feeling especially doomed tonight, lads.
>another good reminder that YA writers fucking suck.
True, but this was coming even without the YA writers cheerleading it. If everything goes according to keikaku for the publishing industry the legal precedent set here will end up screwing over a lot more people than just the IA.


File: 1693723953561.gif (494.35 KB, 400x225, frustrated arcee.gif)

archive.is is having a bunch of problems with some nginx BS. It fails to open properly then opens, then archive.ph stops working, and so on and so forth. It works ok in Tor, but you can't archive properly in tor because cloudflare gets stuck in a loop of captcha. It's enormously frustrating.

also Cloudflare has been blocking me from accessing sites on any browser except Tor, citing some BS about being flagged, even though I was opening sites like blogpost literally the day before. I thought it was my computer but checking with IsItDown shows it as a problem across the net. Fuck me.


Unique IPs: 39

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]