Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Getting dressed for the party, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
That sounds expensive - surely all the signalling must have had to be made two-way
Signalling had to be upgraded ahead of electrification, so they took the opportunity to install bi-di signalling systems right through to Britomart. I don't think it was particularly more expensive to do so as part of a required upgrade, and now that the capability is there I believe it can be pushed out to other parts of the network with moderate ease.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Yeah, one of those police states where people who try and barge past army cordons get shot in the head
Quite. Or, at the least, manhandled off to the cells for an unspecified-but-entirely-at-the-discretion-of-the-police period.
Oh, wait, this is one of those police states where the jack-booted fascists escort the cordon-breachers back into the safe zone and give them a warning. Clearly the police state is alive and well in Christchurch. -
Speaker: TPPA: It's Extreme, in reply to Kumara Republic,
James Joyce died in 1941, so that means his works would theoretically come under public domain this year. At least according to EU copyright law.
The counting starts at 1 January of the year following the creator's death, so it's next year not this.
In the US, courtesy of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, Joyce's work won't enter the public domain for, potentially, nearly three decades (depending when it was published). And if Disney manage to buy yet another extension, could be longer. Hell, if the MAFIAA get their way Joyce might never enter the public domain in the US - or the EU, given that that jurisdiction didn't just extend copyright terms they also revived expired ones! If that doesn't exemplify how much of a joke the idea of copyright as mutually-beneficial has become, I don't know what does. -
Looks like Christchurch City Council could be being set up for an ECan'ing
-
Speaker: TPPA: It's Extreme, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,
And of course, it’s not bismarti, it’s bAsmarti
Doesn't have an 'r', either ;)
-
Speaker: TPPA: It's Extreme, in reply to Islander,
Not a really easy way, no. Wikipedia does a far job, and much of what I would say is just reproducing what’s in that article since I don’t know enough of the details to give you a really accurate answer.
That said, they’re purely issues of copyright. Google allegedly breached copyrights by scanning in some books that weren’t public domain (along with many books that were, and for which there’s then a potential breach of the publisher’s copyright in the typography and layout but which wasn’t raised AFAIK), and settled a lawsuit with its payout. TPPA cannot change the applicability of the settlement, because it’s a contract between private individuals. TPPA could require signatories to create book registries, or join up to one of the existing registries under the settlement, but cannot bind Google to recognising those jurisdictions. The sanctity of the individual prevents a treaty from forcing a private person to engage with any other private person in a particular way.
So to answer what I took to be the unstated question within your question, TPPA doesn’t change your relationship with Google Books. If you weren’t published in the US, Australia, Canada or the UK, your books aren’t covered by the settlement and Google has no rights granted to digitise them. TPPA can’t change your publishing contracts, in the same way it can’t change the settlement agreement.
What can happen is that our illustrious government could change NZ copyright law in a manner that’s advantageous to Google and disadvantageous to you.Very succinctly, there is no global copyright law and TPPA won’t be creating one. The US will push for harmonisation of regimes, but the last word is still domestic law. Google’s settlement was not a matter of legislation, only of legal action, and thus cannot forcibly be modified by treaty.
My charity of choice would be NZ Red Cross, but I don't feel like I've done anything that I wouldn't have done otherwise.
-
Speaker: TPPA: It's Extreme, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,
Maybe I’m reading this all wrong, but does this mean that some US company will be able to copyright something another company does, and then sue that company for using the name and/or producing their product? As in the case of the company that trademarked the name “bismati” and then threatened to sue the Indian rice growers?
You’re confusing patent, trademark and copyright, for one thing. Trademark protects identifying marks in trade, such as words (which cannot be merely descriptive. Frucor failed to get a trademark on “Just Juice” because of this), colours (purple confectionery wrapping is trademarked by Cadbury) designs (Lamborghini car designs are trademarked). You cannot copyright most of those things, though the design work that goes into a Lamborghini is copyrighted in its physical form – the design papers, etc.
The Basmati issue was a patent on the gene structure of Basmati rice, and was ultimately defeated. The patent was only ever granted in the US (in 1997), and in the end the holder lost all their rights because India threatened to take the US to WIPO for granting an invalid patent.
A person (legal or natural) cannot copyright the work of another person. They can only copyright their own work – for the sake of simplicity I’ll ignore works-for-hire – and then enforce that right if someone else copies their work. And it’s a defence to have come up with the same work from your own efforts, though with the internet it’s hard to argue that you had no exposure to the other party’s ideas.
So, yes, you are reading this all wrong, but I think that’s mostly down to a misunderstanding of patents, trademarks, copyrights, and how they come into being and can be enforced.
-
Speaker: TPPA: It's Extreme, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Agree - which is why those who have concerns need to find examples that resonate with the general public. Parallel import limits clearly fall into that category, as does 3 strikes internet termination.
I'm brainstorming an idea or 2 right now as I type this.
One I thought of was: That nice, new, totally legit, iPhone that you bought in the US for half the NZ price? Yeah, you'll be sacrificing that to NZ Customs at the border.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
The people that work on reconstructing sports stadium turf probably otherwise wouldn't be working on building houses or essential services so they're not slowing those things down at all.
Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't have thought there was enough work in NZ to justify specialist turf installers for that grade of facility. Drainage contractors, though, definitely have other things to be working on.
Plus it's the propriety of where the money has gone. As a friend observed on FB, there are bodies being pulled out of collapsed buildings, tens-of-thousands are without sewage facilities, many are sleeping in tents or on sofas, and the first big monetary commitment from the government goes to a sports facility.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Cabinet has agreed to establish a Royal Commission into the Canterbury Earthquake, Prime Minister John Key has announced.
And he's already suggesting that criminal charges might be laid as a result. Against whom, exactly? The architects? The builders? The owners? Assuming the buildings were appropriately assessed after September, and the engineers' advice followed, who's done anything criminal?
Plus, given the quake exceeded current design standards, how can one possibly get to a conclusion of negligence? Sounds to me like he's blowing hot air to try and make himself sound tough - and, therefore, trustworthy.