[conspire] Copyrights and patents
ruben at mrbrklyn.com
Tue Mar 29 00:34:02 PDT 2011
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:01:19PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 07:09:43PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> > > Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):
> > >
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/business/media/29ipad.html
> > > >
> > > > FWIW - this is an example of a company, TM in this case, stretching the
> > > > law to create facts on the ground....
> > >
> > > Stretching which law, by the way?
> I notice you didn't address this question. Let's try it again:
> Rubin: Stretching which law, by the way?
Ruben is spelled with an E, at least that is how my mother spelled it
and it's on my Birth Certificate as such.
Here is the background information on this dispute between thee
interests and companies.
Starting about 1998 and onward, Maybeth Peterson started outline how she
intepreted current copyright law in this hearing in the Judicial
Commitee which outlines the various issues of streaming copyrighted
materials on the internet, and the aditional issue of forced licensing
The law which most of this centers on, butnt exclussivively is 106, 5
although 118 and 119 and as the former copyright register noted, parts
of the Bern convention have been used already in the lobbying wars on
Finally, there will be inevitiable lobbying as a result of these little
applcaitons that the cable networks put out and for which they are
currently getting sued. Its happened yesterday, it is happening now,
and it will happen tomorrow. What is going to be interesting is to see
how Time_warner is going to explain to Anthony Weiner how they justify
switching sides. A few years ago, TW's lobbiest posed to Weiner and
Berman that copying of music should be allowed legally on Chat Programs like AIM
and on hand held phone like devices. This was in 2001. The proposal
went nowhere since serious oppotion to the DMCA largely evaported in the
wake of the ... actually I'm not certain why it has largely evaporated.
I'm certain, Martin Pincus, who is the main lobbiest I'd come to
aquainted for TW is up there now working on protecting these potential
One more note. Your confusing me with someone else. I stand behind
what I wrote, all of it and it is not just rhetoric, although rhetoic is
important. Its the real confluance of law, politics, and technology in
action as it plays out in the real world.
The interesting thing in this article is these two things:
A) Melinda Witmer, an executive vice president at Time Warner Cable,
said in an interview last week that she thought the current dispute was
“fundamentally about money and leverage,” not about the language of
contracts. “I already bought these rights,” she said.
As i understand the contract negotiations from the complaints at
hearings in the House Judiary Sub-Committee and in the Department of
Commerce... they HAVE NOT broaght such writes from the creators of the
prgrams, or the distrubers to the cable companies. It would be very
difficult to be think she is not overtly lieing and is fully aware of
B) Legal threats were made last week, and the dispute was brought into
public view on Monday when Time Warner Cable introduced a Web campaign
that promoted “more freedom to watch on more screens” and asked, “Why do
some TV networks want to take it away?”
That avertisement is not so much selling to the public. It is selling
your Congressman for the next Judicial Committtee Hearing
> You also disregarded this question: 'The cited article doesn't mention
> lobbying. It does mention that Time Warner Cable had been doing a PR
> campaign on its Web site. Is there some other article that talks about
> lobbying in connection with this story?'
> Here, let me help you out: This is your cue to say 'Yeah, you're right,
> Rick. My rhetoric got carried away with me when I said "not to mention
> their inevitable lobbying": As you noticed, the article said nothing
> about lobbying. It was just about a business dispute between a cable
> company and two cable channel owners.'
> I'd suggest that it's a really bad idea for you to ignore me when I
> start (belatedly) reining you in by politely asking you to substantiate
> doubtful assertions of fact that you sprayed onto my small local LUG
> mailing list while attempting to abuse it as a target for rants about
> the behaviour of corporations that doesn't even have anything to do with
> Let's back up. This is important.
> We have pretty relaxed standards of topicality on this mailing list,
> which we can indulge because the people on this mailing list are pretty
> much well behaved and sensible. They'd never, for example, seek to
> troll the membership into some infamous flamewar about, say, the
> Arab/Israeli dispute or, say, the RIAA / DMCA / copyright thuggery.
> So, we trust to the maturity and judgement of our subscribers, and don't
> declare 'You may not be an idiot in any of the following 43 ways' rules.
> You're probably aware of where I'm going with this: You've been guilty
> of posting flamebait on various infamous flame topics. This has been
> very notably injurious to my small LUG mailing list. You have been the
> worst of several bad apples, and the chief excuse for bad behaviour on
> the part of others. I need you to stop all that, pretty much right now.
> This is not Congress, and you are not giving Congressional testimony.
> You will not be stumping here with ideological arguments for changes to
> national, let alone international, copyright legal policy.
> Now, before you start protesting that you didn't _mean_ to post
> flamebait, don't even go there. Alleged inadvertency wouldn't make it
> better; it would make it worse. That would be implicitly saying 'I
> can't and won't stop doing that.'
There is not flamebait here, but moderator and what I HAVE SAID
preivously to you is still true. This is your list. You make the
> > > The article you point to discussed cable channels such as Comedy
> > > Central, which is owned by Viacom, one of the two cable-TV holding
> > > companies it discusses. Viacom asserts that Comedy Central is made
> > > available to the cable companies by contract, and that the rights
> > > conveyed by contract don't include streaming to tablet computers.
> > > That strikes me as entirely plausible.
> > >
> > > Are you saying some law requires that right to be automatically conveyed
> > > to contract partners? If so, what law?
> > No - every hearing on copyright in Washington includes extensive
> > discussion on the rights of internet respoduction, and the TV stations
> > themselves sued to prevent the broadcasts from being streamed from
> > Canada.
> Excuse me, but not so fast, please:
> (1) I saw nothing whatsoever in the cited article about broadcast. The
> article talks about cable channels, which is why this is reported to be
> a busines dispute between Time Warner and two cable channel operators.
> (2) You have conspicuously failed to address the question: What law?
> To rephrase that, what legal right (and according to what law) is one
> of the parties being denied? Neither party to this specific tort
> dispute, which has thus far risen only to the level of vague legal
> threats, is raising anything other than contract details. If you're
> asserting that this isn't a contract dispute, which isn't the aggrieved
> party raising that other issue? Do you think they're stupid?
> > TM knows....
> Excuse me, but who the gently caress is 'TM'? Toyota Motors?
> Transcendental Meditation? Thrash Metal? Turing Machine? You've now
> used that expression in two postings in a row, but there is nobody, and
> no company or organisation mentioned in the article, named TM, and none
> whose initials would, if abbreviated, be TM.
> Is that perhaps your erroneous rendering of 'Time _Warner_'? Twice in a
> Maybe you should slow down a little bit. Your postings might make quite
> a bit more sense, in a number of areas.
> Here's an idea: Cease trying to batter people over the head with
> verbose screeds stating your opinions, and at least take the time to
> cite your underlying reasoning rather than just attempting to hammer
> people. It's really gently caressing obnoxious, Rubin.
> > TM knows full well that they can no legally stream their
> > broacasting rights to the net without violating copyright, whether on an
> > ipad or not. In fact, they are a leading arguer for this restriction.
> Time Warner assert that they paid for those rights pursuant to contract.
> Maybe this is true; maybe it isn't. Have you read those contracts?
> I haven't. Thus my shutting the gently caress up on that subject.
> > TW just woke up and decided to create facts on the ground and now is
> > making a public campaign to try to gain a foothold.
> By putting a page on their Web site. Ooh, I'm quaking at the awesome
> power of their PR machine.
> Here's my bottom line, Ruben: This crappy little story, that you are trying
> to drum up outrage about via some pathetic tu-quoque argument, doesn't
> even have anything to do with copyright (much as you might scream and
> yell that it does), and it sure as gently caress has absolutely nothing
> to do with Linux, and nothing to do with CABAL.
> You are now going to cool it. Very.
> If you feel an uncontrollable urge to rant about dumbass business
> disputes among disreputable entertainment companies, take it somewhere
> else. Not here.
> conspire mailing list
> conspire at linuxmafia.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."
"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."
© Copyright for the Digital Millennium
More information about the conspire