backtop


Print 27 comment(s) - last by polishvendetta.. on Aug 23 at 9:23 AM

Patent reform will take a bit longer to come about

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has taken its fair share of criticism of late, with some calling it a "broken" system.  Verdicts like the $1.92M USD verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rasset for sharing 24 songs (eventually reduced to $220,000 USD) or Apple, Inc. (AAPLthreatening to sue the New York City for using an Apple in a city greening campaign logo (Apple has sued other companies for using images of the fruit, claiming it owns trademark rights to all corporate artistic depictions of the fruit) have many convinced that the copyright system is in need of reform.

In a new request for public comment, that's part of a broader 122-page report, dubbed "Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy" [PDF], the Internet Policy Task Force -- a U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC) working group -- writes:

In recent years, the debates over copyright have become increasingly contentious. Too often copyright and technology policies are seen as pitted against each other, as if a meaningful copyright system is antithetical to the innovative power of the Internet, or an open Internet will result in the end of copyright. We do not believe such a dichotomy is necessary or appropriate.

It alludes to recent audits which revealed rampant abuse of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act [PDF] (DMCA), including some businesses using fraudulent DMCA copyright infringement claims to temporarily takedown rival websites.  

Copyright Pirates
Copyright wars have raged for over a century in the U.S. as law clashed with new technologies.

The working group writes:

Establishing a multistakeholder dialogue on improving the operation of the notice and takedown system for removing infringing content from the Internet under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The Task Force says it will "convene roundtable" sessions of public, corporate leaders, and copyright watchdog groups (e.g. the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)).  It also says it will "solicit public comment".  The paper offered no details on when or where the public can take advantage of these opportunities, but it advises interested citizens to "stay tuned for announcements."

At this point some of you may be thinking -- "Great, that covers copyright, but what about patents?"

Recall, with government bureaucracy and public indignation there's a certain latency/suffering period between whenever things go to the metaphorical Hades in a hand basket and when the government finally feels compelled to take action.  The copyright wars largely raged in the early 2000s.  By 2010 the RIAA had mostly scuttled its campaign of threat letters against citizens and while flashy infringement battles continued to emerge, much of the worse abuses were already said and done.

Likewise the smartphone patent battles, and the general rise in patent trolling in the software industry -- a present tense battle that emerged in full effect around 2010 -- may not be resolved with reform until 2020 or later, perhaps.

Source: USPTO [PDF]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Easy
By sprockkets on 8/20/2013 4:12:35 PM , Rating: 4
Return back to the original standard - what was it, 15 or 20 years at the most. Done.

Of course with the NSA debacle copyright laws kinda took a place on the back burner...




RE: Easy
By ritualm on 8/20/2013 5:15:42 PM , Rating: 3
Ban lobbying groups from all political activity.

Kill the Mickey Mouse law.

20 years for both copyrights and patents, allowing for one extension (or, for the layman, 40 years combined tops), after which they belong to the public.


RE: Easy
By therealnickdanger on 8/21/2013 6:14:41 AM , Rating: 2
I would be happy if the laws changed so you could not patent ideas on napkins, math, biology, or research (giant clumps of ideas). Limit it to functional products and works of art.


RE: Easy
By vXv on 8/21/2013 8:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
allowing for one extension


Why?


RE: Easy
By Flunk on 8/21/2013 9:15:28 AM , Rating: 3
The extension should be required to originate from the original author too, not anyone else. If they're dead, then no extension.


RE: Easy
By Da W on 8/20/2013 8:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Copyright everything you post on the internet then sue the NSA.


RE: Easy
By vXv on 8/21/2013 8:19:08 AM , Rating: 2
I have no idea on how this is handled by US law but here in Austria you automatically have copyright for everything you write unless it is "insignificant". I'd expect the US law to be similar.


RE: Easy
By boobo on 8/20/2013 10:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
Changing the length of time is not the most important issue. Checks and balances are the basis of US law, but they don't exist in copyright. A copyright owner should be able to get fast and efficient results when they send a takedown claim to a site, but they should also be liable to a comparably harsh penalty if they abuse that with bogus claims.


RE: Easy
By superstition on 8/21/2013 4:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
14 years, but it was extended to 42 in the 19th century:

quote:
The Copyright Act of 1831 was the first general revision to United States copyright law. The bill is largely the result of lobbying efforts by American lexicographer Noah Webster.

The key changes in the Act included:

Extension of the original copyright term from 14 years to 28 years, with an option to renew the copyright for another 14 years

Addition of musical compositions to the list of statutorily protected works (though this protection only extended to reproductions of compositions in printed form; the public performance right was not recognized until later)

Extension of the statute of limitations on copyright actions from one year to two

Changes in copyright formality requirements


wow
By Motoman on 8/20/2013 8:12:45 PM , Rating: 3
Well, where to start? For starters, I'll just ponder upon the issue of filesharing...frankly the entirety of copyright law needs to be thrown out and re-start from scratch.

But on the topic of filesharing, I would suggest the following:

1. Any damages have to be based on proven & verified copies being made - not simply making it available.

2. Any damages have to be based on the actual retail value of the file that was copied...not ridiculous multiples thereof. If a single .mp3 is copied, and you can buy the .mp3 on Amazon.com for a dollar, then the damage is a dollar.

2. Any damages would have to be predicated on *proving* that the revenue was actually lost - which is to say, you have to prove (beyond the shadow of a doubt), that the product *would have* been purchased at a legitimate retail vendor if it wasn't available for pirating. So, when you find some college kid with a copy of Adobe CS6 or whatever, you need to realize that if CS6 wasn't available on TPB, he wasn't going to purchase it instead. He'd be using GIMP and Paint.net.




RE: wow
By bigboxes on 8/20/2013 8:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
You are on a roll lately. I think it's fair that if they can prove that you are seeding a torrent (not simply leeching) that you would be liable for the going rate for that media (book, song, album, movie, etc.) The **AA's of our present shouldn't act like they've struck gold everytime they "catch" a file sharer. They should just be compensated for the worth of the file actually shared, not multiples. If the going rate for CS6 is $500 then that's what you should be required to pay as a penalty. You shouldn't go to prison or pay some ridiculous amount based on what "could be".

Personally, I think that both copyright and patents should expire at 20 years with no extensions for companies. Maybe an extension for an artist if they are still alive. Everything else should expire and become part of the public domain.


RE: wow
By boobo on 8/20/2013 10:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure about #2. If the worse thing that can happen to you if you take your chances and illegally obtain a file is to pay the same amount that you'd pay if you had chosen to purchase the file instead... then why would anyone choose to buy the file legally?

#3 also has a problem. If students and low-income people who could never pay for CS6 get a "get out of jail free" card that allows them to pirate all Adobe products as much as they want because they'd be unable to buy it anyway, then you are effectively destroying all the companies that make paint programs almost as good as CS but at a small fraction of the price.


RE: wow
By spamreader1 on 8/21/2013 9:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
That's easy enough to fix though. Make a flat fine of somewhere ballpark $500-5000 only for the instance, and pay the retail value (at lowest retail cost, not necisarily msrp).

So you download 2000 songs, get busted. You pay a $500 fine + $1/song, so a total fine of $2500.


RE: wow
By spamreader1 on 8/21/2013 9:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
oh, and you get to keep those 2000 songs, since you for all intents and purposes have now purchased them as part of the process.


RE: wow
By Motoman on 8/21/2013 7:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
You've missed the point that it's still illegal - you're still going to get a criminal record out of the deal (presumably for a misdemeanor), and potentially have to pay court/attorney's fees.

Nobody's getting a get out of jail free card. You're still going to jail...well, probably not actually going to jail. But you are going to get arrested, charged with a crime, and tried in court. You'll have that on your record, and you'll have to pay for lawyers and whatever other costs are involved in getting arrested and tried for a crime.

I'm just talking about the actual fines that you're ordered to pay as part of that process.

Say you get caught making Adobe CS6 available in some filesharing thing...and the cops can prove that one person downloaded it. That one person clearly hasn't got the financial chops to have ever actually purchased a copy of CS6 on his own...so the fine is $0. But you still got arrested. Still got convicted. Have to pay $X in court costs and perhaps $Y in lawyers' fees.


RE: wow
By vXv on 8/21/2013 8:22:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yes exactly. Just because a copy has been made does not mean that damage has been done. There is always the possibility (which is rather high) that the receiver of the copy would not have bough a license / retail version if he had no option to pirate it.


RE: wow
By Rukkian on 8/22/2013 1:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
There is really no way to determine if somebody that downloaded would have bought the item. Making it available and having it downloaded 10x should get you a penalty of 10x the price of the item. Whether the person would have bought it is irrelevant. If they wanted it, they should have paid for it.

You then fine the person that downloaded double the cost of the item, which in the end nets the company 3x the cost for every download.

This seems fair to me, as many will be willing to risk downloading at that price, and makes up for the people hosting that cannot be touched due to their location or annoyminity.


RE: wow
By polishvendetta on 8/23/2013 9:23:38 AM , Rating: 2
If credit card companies can estimate if you can pay your credit card bill before they grant you an account then anyone sould reasonable beable to determine if a person would have the funds to legaly purchace software.

Specifically regarding softare I would also add if you make money off of it. A college student taking a design class caught with a copy of photoshop should have less of a penalty then a graphic designer that uses pirated software for their business.


There's your problem
By TSS on 8/20/2013 6:00:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
that's part of a broader 122-page report


122 pages?! no wonder nothing gets done in congress. Imagine having to read all that.

In fact out of curiousity i spent a few minutes of my time reading into the 3 page(!) executive summary, in which they call for public round tables (3 seperate times!). And, in fact, i can summerize that summary into 1 single sentance:

"The taskforces has looked into the matter of copyright and promises to do so further, possibly with other people".

I shudder to think what's in the rest of the report, i'm not going to read that because my time can be spent better. But if i'd done an article about it having read only the summary, i'd focus on this part instead:

quote:
The Task Force repeats the Administration’s prior call for Congress to e nact legislation adopting the same range of penalties for criminal streaming of copyrighte d works to the public as now exist s for criminal reproduction and distribution


Applying the same penalties for downloading to streaming is fricking insane, not even taking into account the penalties are already fricking insane, as streams are of a limited time and quality therefor having, provably, an even lesser impact on copyrighted works then downloadable media.

But no let's focus on the very remote (read: none) possibility of having a say in all this. If you're a leader of industry, stakeholder or "notice of inquiry" participant. Living in 2010.




RE: There's your problem
By bug77 on 8/21/2013 4:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"The taskforces has looked into the matter of copyright and promises to do so further, possibly with other people".


Figures. I mean, hell didn't freeze over lat time I checked.


RE: There's your problem
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 11:48:46 AM , Rating: 2
"They have to pass it before they can read it."


RE: There's your problem
By superstition on 8/21/2013 4:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
Not a bug, but a feature. Also, it's a recent thing:

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-they-do...


Copying and reasonable profit
By Nephelai on 8/21/2013 8:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
The problem I see lies with reasonable profit levels. Middle level suppliers embraced the digital technology, namely copying, to eliminate complete supply chains and increase profits significantly. If the consumer uses the same technology to reduce their cost, namely sharing a purchase, somehow it's a crime. IF the middle cartel had passed on the savings with some form of equity then the situation would be vastly different I think. E.g songs on iUnes should be like 5c.

idSoftware got it in my oppinion. Sell a game to a certain profit level then make it free. No need to bleed people for ever.

After all, imagine when copying reaches a boundary condition where we can copy anything. There wouldn't be a point to making money anymore. You could bet the cartel would patent it just to further bleed consumers. Let's hope these dudes don't find the cure to cancer.




Do they really need to ask
By bobcpg on 8/21/2013 11:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
Just send yourself an email with the subject "Copyright Thoughts" that details your ideas. That will probably get to them faster. ;)




Copyright Changes
By AlfB on 8/21/2013 1:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
The system needs to change in a way that discourages piracy but is resonable. For example, a multi-six figure judgement is crazy unless the actual damages are in that range. But it does need to punish/discourage piracy. You can't leave it open by saying the copyrighter has to prove the pirate would have purchased if they had not stole it. That is very difficult to do and frankly wrong. The person still did the deed knowing that it was wrong (or should have). So it seems that an amount that is similar to the cost of that which was stolen and a stiff but also proportionate amount on top of that seems reasonable.




Nice work
By amypaige654 on 8/21/2013 4:58:35 PM , Rating: 1

Im really thankful to Ricky Casanoir that commented last week in this site and suggested me this site to earn money online. By just following simple 3 steps you get on the verge of making easy amount at home. ... http://xurl.es/mie6b




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki