Intellectual Property Forums (http://www.intelproplaw.com/Forum/Forum.cgi)
Other >> Suggestions/Comments on these Forums >> News vs. editorial commentary
(Message started by: JimIvey on Sep 8th, 2004, 2:34pm)

Title: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by JimIvey on Sep 8th, 2004, 2:34pm
I'd suggest a clear demarkation between news and editorial commentary/opinion.  The news on the main page currently appears to have more editorial comment than actual news (although I haven't counted words for comparison).  The clear pro-RIAA/MPAA/Disney bias of the editor is a bit heavy-handed and ought to be left to an opinion page (or the forums themselves) in my opinion.

It can be as simple as posting the editorial thoughts in a forum and linking to that topic in the news piece -- e.g., "Note: The editor's thoughts on this news item can be found here.  Post your thoughts as well." ... with the appropriate link in place.

Of course, you know I love these forums and want to congratulate the master once again on a job well done.

Best regards.

Title: Re: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by Isaac Clark on Sep 8th, 2004, 4:39pm
I disagree.  I think that the editorial content is pretty
clearly marked as such.  While I would be somtimes be happier if the
editor didn't editorialize so much, it's mostly because I
disagree with his views and I don't get my own space on
the front page.

I can live with it the way it is.

Title: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by eric stasik on Sep 9th, 2004, 5:29am
Mr. Clark, Mr. Ivey,

Thanks for the feedback. I have tried to clearly separate and indicate my editorial comments from the news content.

My intent with the "editor's note" is to create some dialogue and discussion that will hopefully flow over into the forums. And, God forbid, to have a little fun.

On a site dealing with Intellectual Property Law, I am a bit surprised that my views are characterized by Mr. Ivey as a clear pro-RIAA/MPAA/Disney bias when he knows full well that they are simply (and clearly) pro-IPR.

Anti-IPR bias is one reason why I stopped posting at Slashdot - I am a bit surprised to find it here - especially coming from a patent attorney - but I welcome the diversity of opinion.

Regards,

eric stasik

Title: Re: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by Isaac Clark on Sep 9th, 2004, 5:45am

on 09/09/04 at 05:29:22, eric stasik wrote:
Mr. Clark, Mr. Ivey,

On a site dealing with Intellectual Property Law, I am a bit surprised that my views are characterized by Mr. Ivey as a clear pro-RIAA/MPAA/Disney bias when he knows full well that they are simply (and clearly) pro-IPR.

Anti-IPR bias is one reason why I stopped posting at Slashdot - I am a bit surprised to find it here - especially coming from a patent attorney - but I welcome the diversity of opinion.

Regards,

eric stasik


I don't think you're opinion as expressed here is very objective.  It is possible to believe that the RIAA/MPAA is wrong about an issue without being anti-IPR.   Not being able to see that suggest (to me anyway) that you have a fairly extreme position.

But IMO you have every right to express your opinion as the editor and certainly strong opinions do spark discussion.

Title: Re: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by eric stasik on Sep 9th, 2004, 6:03am

on 09/09/04 at 05:45:19, Isaac Clark wrote:
It is possible to believe that the RIAA/MPAA is wrong about an issue without being anti-IPR. Not being able to see that suggest (to me anyway) that you have a fairly extreme position.


When it comes to defending the rights of inventors, authors, and other creative people, yes I have a fairly extreme position.

And yes, it is possible to believe that the RIAA/MPAA is wrong - Justin Timberlake and Ishtar are two examples that come quickly to mind - without being anti-IPR.

regards,

eric stasik






Title: Re: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by eric stasik on Sep 9th, 2004, 8:02am
Mr. Clark,

On second thought, I must concede that my statement might be thought of as extreme and thus unfair. To be more precise what I should have written is "a bias against IPR owners", instead of a "bias against IPR."

The RIAA is an unsympathetic IPR owner - reviled within the Open Source community alongside SCO.

As an IPR professional, it is painful for me to stand by and watch people use arguments about the RIAA's outdated business model as justification for eviserating the RIAA's ability to enforce their copyrights.

Killing the Goliath like this only means that he will fall on David and crush him too... and then there's nothing stopping the Philistines.

In acting to secure their own copyright interests, the RIAA might be seen in this forum as securing the interests of all copyright owners.

Because we all know that in an odd, twisted, parallel universe sort of way, when the RIAA acts to enforce and protect their copyrights they are indirectly strengthening agreements like the GPL, Creative Commons, as well as securing the rights of all sorts of  people with original creativity.

Strong, unpopular words because it appears as support for the evil RIAA - but from my (biased) point of view, this is a position equally in support of the independent artists who may one day eventually drive the RIAA out of business through alternative forms of licensing made possible by strong copyright.

"Hoist by their own petard," I believe is what conservative writers would call it.

Strong, enforceable IPR lads, this is what we should all be striving for. Even of the owner is an unsympathetic one.

In my opinion which I am grateful for the opportunity to express.

Regards,

eric stasik

Title: Re: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by JimIvey on Sep 9th, 2004, 12:54pm
My main points were/are:

Editorial comment is being commingled with news -- not always in a clearly delimited manner.  The examples I have in mind specifically are the editor-selected titles of the news pieces.  I believe one particularly troubling one was something like "Makers of Pirate Ships Not Liable for Piracy".  I've addressed that title elsewhere.

At times, the opinion on the "news" space significantly exceeds the objective news in terms of numbers of words and sometimes even display space.  IMHO, that makes the "news" section more of an "opinion" section, leaving the site without an opinion-free front-page news section.  It's not a matter of right or wrong but rather of what adds value to the site.

Lastly, and this is strictly from my own subjective experience as a user, the lack of a "reply" button near the opinions expressed in the news section gives the feeling of a bully pulpit.  If I disagree with the opinion, I have to start a new thread elsewhere and post it a couple of layers deep in the user interface.  After I do that, the front page still looks as if the opinion is unchallenged.

This is just my subjective and humbly submitted opinion that this portal would be better if the opinions were placed directly in the forums where they would most certainly spark interesting and educational debate rather than stated authoritatively on the front page.

Regards.

Title: Re: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by Isaac Clark on Sep 9th, 2004, 6:24pm

on 09/09/04 at 08:02:15, eric stasik wrote:
Mr. Clark,

On second thought, I must concede that my statement might be thought of as extreme and thus unfair. To be more precise what I should have written is "a bias against IPR owners", instead of a "bias against IPR."

Strong, enforceable IPR lads, this is what we should all be striving for. Even of the owner is an unsympathetic one.

In my opinion which I am grateful for the opportunity to express.

Regards,

eric stasik


I appreciate your taking the time to respond here.  One of the reasons why I don't object to the editorials on the front page is that you are willing to participate in discussion about them.

I consider myself to be pro IPR.  I certainly don't buy into the "information want to be free" and "the man is stealing from the artists anyway" arguments.  Nevertheless, there are limits to what measures I'm willing to take to protect IPR just as there are limits to how much power I'm willing to give the police to fight crime.  Just as not being in favor allowing the police to rubber house suspects does not mean I'm pro crime, not being willing to outlaw P2P does not mean that I'm against copyright protection.  

Your view seems to be that there are people who will go to extreme lenghts to protect intellectual property and then there are the pirate supporters.

Also, I did not see any of the "Slashdot" arguments you deride in the article where your editorial pointed out that it takes a village to infringe a copyright.  






Title: Re: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by W on Sep 9th, 2004, 7:03pm
Hmm. This article is very entertaining:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/09/altnet_vs_riaa/

While I agree with Mr. Clark's position that copyright owners can/should be able to pursue copyright infringers to the full extent of the law (yes, even the evil RIAA/MPAA), what happens when in pursuit of those infringers (or in attempts to slow them down) results in infringement on another's IP (patent)?

Your Thoughts?

-W

Title: Re: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by Isaac Clark on Sep 9th, 2004, 8:15pm
I don't see a controversy.  If they are infringing a patent,
they will have to cease doing so or they'll have to negotiate
a deal with the patent holder.

Title: Re: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by W on Sep 9th, 2004, 8:24pm
Yes and no. In black and white, in order for the RIAA to pursue infringers on the Kazaa network, they need to license (or otherwise devise away around) the patent that Altnet holds. Assuming they would license it to them.

In a different fashion, this would be the equivalent of the police showing up a night club, with suspicion of illegal activities (drug use, etc.) going on inside, and being told that they may enter, but only after paying the door fee.

So, how far can a copyright owner go in pursuing infringers? In pursuit, like in criminal pursuit, can the copyright owner override other's IP to catch them?

-W

Fun little things like that.

Title: Re: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by Isaac Clark on Sep 10th, 2004, 3:14pm
I don't think it's quite the same as the police analogy
because corporations and private citizens are not the police.  We
If there was a patented lock on the door and it would be infringement
to open the door, then we'd have a close analogy.  Of course
you cannot sue the state for patent or copyright infringement anyway.
Absent a court order, the RIAA cannot even violate ordinary
property rights to enter my house to make sure I'm not infringing.  I don't find it surprising that
they cannot violate intellectual property rights to do that
either.

There are limits.  I don't think you can prevent someone from
doing the copying necessary to file a complaint.

Title: Re: News vs. editorial commentary
Post by JimIvey on Sep 14th, 2004, 9:57am
First, this thread is getting a bit off topic, but I'll go ahead and poke in a few thoughts.

Re police going into a night club: there are specific aspects of the law which limit the night club owner's rights and specifically allow the police to enter without permission under specific circumstances (e.g., with a search warrant).  There are currently no such provisions in the law for copyright owners to violate others' patents to enforce copyrights -- but some rather surprising provisions are being considered in Congress for the benefit of copyright owners.

Years ago (after 3 moving violations in 48 hours), I thought I would patent as many remote vehicle speed determining mechanisms as possible to prevent law enforcement from determining my speed.  Alas, I never followed up with that.  Now, I just drive a little slower.

In short, patents allow the owner to prevent others from making, using, selling, or importing -- unless there is some explicit exception in the law.  Sorry, RIAA.  They'll have to take a license or find another way.

One last hope for the RIAA is that they might try invalidating the patent for lack of utility -- specifically on the grounds that the patent helps violation of the law and is therefore against public policy.  It would be an interesting case since I don't think that notion of "utility|usefullness" is challenged much.

Regards.



Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board