It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
there are multiple provisions in here that will absolutely require changes to US law. We'll discuss a few in other posts, but what's much more nefarious and downright obnoxious, is that this would lock in a variety of really bad copyright policies, making it nearly impossible for Congress to go back and change them. And that's a real issue, because, as we've been discussing, Congress is actually discussing copyright reform again. The head of the US Copyright Office, Maria Pallante, has proposed a bunch of changes to copyright law (some good, some bad), and astoundingly, just as Congress is at least trying to have the discussion about whether or not those and other ideas make sense, the USTR is looking to effectively tie everyone's hands by saying "these things cannot be changed," including many of the reforms that Pallante has directly proposed.
On the one hand, you have the very head of the Copyright Office suggesting some reforms, and you have Congress beginning the process to explore that. On the other, you have the USTR totally ignoring the sole power of Congress to make copyright and patent law, and effectively saying "you cannot make any of the suggested reforms." And then the USTR has the gall to ask Congress to give up its power to challenge specific provisions in the agreement? While we're concerned about the Congressional copyright reform process, at least it's being done in the open. The USTR has been hashing out the plan in TPP in total secrecy for years.
Who the hell does the USTR think they are that they can flat out override the Constitution and the Congressional process, and effectively block them in and stop any meaningful attempt at copyright reform? All done via a process driven entirely by a few special interests? It's anti-democracy. It's pure corporate cronyism by the worst cronies around.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation says TPP has “extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples’ abilities to innovate”. It’s Hollywood’s wish list.
copyright is one of the worst laws ever enacted, it has caused massive technological stagnation especially in fields monopolized by big buisiness like energy and medicine.
free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny
If they become aware – that’s the key. One of TPP’s most odious elements has been the secrecy under which it’s been negotiated. The Obama administration’s fondness for secret laws, policies and methods has a lot to do with a basic reality: the public would say no to much of which is done in our names and with our money if we knew what was going on. As Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out, in a letter to the White House:
My own personal ideology (as someone who would like to eventually publish works of fiction) on the subject is this: Maybe it shouldn't even be a legal option for a writer or inventor to sell their works outright. Licensing for shorter periods of time (which is more common in publishing than inventing) means the originator of the work retains ownership,
Rather than give so much space to conspiracy theorists and those outright anti-US in their views, we would rather the media asked the question - can New Zealand afford not to be part of TPP? We think there is only one answer to this - no, we can't afford to leave this process.
reply to post by XPLodER
So I take you have NEVER has intellectual property stolen.
It is really something rather different; to work for months on an original idea, Long days, late nights; little sleep, and almost no reward or compensation.
Then someone who "thinks" they like it tries to take it all. Tries to take all the hard work you have done, and make it their own with out so much as asking, nor acknowledging the original effort.
Next time y'all think about this; think..."the bastards just came in here and took my child without even a single word."
Cause that's what it like; someone stealing you child, and then lying about it.
It isn't even about the loss of money, its about the lack of respect for the creative spark, and the individual who has "THAT" spark.
Copyright laws do not impede innovation, they make it more secure, and possible. These laws give me the protection I need to feel like innovating is actually worth the effort, trouble, lost sleep, and no income that also accompanies true innovation.
The copyright reform train is gathering steam, but whose hand is at the controls? Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on "The Rise of Innovative Business Models: Content Delivery Methods In The Digital Age." We expect witnesses from the major movie and TV studios to expand on their recent theme: that major studios are doing plenty of innovation already, so Congress doesn't need to make copyright law more innovation-friendly. They will say studios' limited forays into digital distribution, like Hulu, HBO GO, Crackle, and the UltraViolet digital rights management (DRM) system are innovation aplenty. But that’s disingenuous, as they've continued to litigate with scorched-earth tactics against others who dare to innovate without the studios' permission.
Innovation is indeed the key to growing the arts, and the business of entertainment, and the studios' shift towards new distribution technologies is their best way forward. But the innovation that happens within the walls of Disney, Time Warner, and Comcast/NBC is not enough. Trailblazing innovation that empowers individuals and creates new markets almost never happens within the walls of well-established, market-dominating companies. IBM didn't invent the personal computer. AT&T didn't invent the Internet. Sears didn't invent online retail. And major movie and TV studios have fought against every major shift in video distribution, from cable to VCRs to DVRs.
Nathan Seidle of Sparkfun explained why his company has chosen to sell its products without patent protection (the company also shares its software via a CC-license).
Attempting to stop pirates is a waste of time. Show me an anti-piracy law or technology and I’ll show you a dozen 15 year-old girls and boys who can crack it. The resources spent stopping pirates comes at the expense of innovation and improving the business practices that actually serve the customers and industry. The most efficient way to get reimbursed for creative work is to make it easy to purchase and consume that content. How do you get the market to buy your product or service? Provide better support, better quality, better price, and better availability. If you show the consumer that you are a better company with which to do business, they will shop with you. This is not a new business model. This is how business has been done for thousands of years. There is no need to waste time, energy, money and resources suing infringers or pirates; our time is better spent innovating.
Yes. Not surprisingly, Seidle got by far the most pushback from the members, who seemed to have difficulty understanding that Seidle was not saying patents and other IP protections shouldn't exist at all, but rather that they are not necessarily crucial to many types of innovation. "Innovation moves faster than the shield of IP protection."
In the past three years, OpenStack has grown so rapidly that it’s not only used by NASA but by other operations across the federal government. It is an engine of growth, backed by hundreds of companies worldwide, including technology giants such as Cisco, Dell, HP, IBM, and Red Hat. This one project — OpenStack — is directly responsible for tens of thousands of new American jobs and has driven billions of dollars of growth and investment.
OpenStack is even more astounding in the human dimension. There are over a thousand individual contributors, who have collectively written enough code and documentation that, if it were all printed out, would reach to the moon.
These companies and these people are both technologists and content creators. This massive contribution to innovation is the result not of exclusive and tight control over their copyrighted content, but of the deliberate spreading and dissemination of their efforts.