Consider someone who stood inside France and shot an arrow into Germany. That arrow strikes a Kraut and kills them. Did the murder occur in France or in Germany?
If it isn't a crime in France to launch arrows at other people, then maybe Germans should just stand back from the border.
If Ethiopia (reasonably IMHO) declared it a crime to knowingly allow starvation (by hoarding your own surplus), would you consider *your* extradition just?
So private individuals are prohibited from profiting from mash-ups involving large numbers of original works?* I thought we were trying to solve the problem of IP owners (to the detriment of society) vetoing further progress?
*At least, until they set up puppet companies that resell (to the parent company) minor derivatives of the original works individually, for negligible gross price (effectively renegotiating the license away). And even in the best case, the whole idea only benefits creators if the derivative works are not also distributed gratis.
It's true that wiping out mosquitoes could be a cascading ecological catastrophic (consider how many species directly depend on aquatic mosquito larvae at some point in their own life cycle), but this device is an ideal solution because it only blocks mosquitoes from feeding specifically on humans (without affecting those mosquitoes in wild habitats).
Where is the study showing that TV causes promiscuity that is undesirable?
Anything that requires physical manufacturing, quality control, and any kind of regulatory oversight can't hope to go from concept to consumer within less than 2 years.
Which means your industry didn't need IP in the first place, you already have a two year monopoly and a head start for your brand thereafter. (And, if regulatory oversight is really so onerous, just regulate that competitors aren't approved until after you.) I'm more concerned for the useful specialist ebook-author.
Agreed, and even if there has been a ruling or legislation on it before, there still needs to be a way for the average person to find that out (without prohibitive expense). Must I go put on shoes, or can I legally drive here wearing basic thong sandals?
Maybe they've clued on to the public sentiment against drug patents? Presenting themselves to be voluntarily charitable seeks to undermine our strongest argument for IP reform, while at the same time they are likely increasing profits (think DVD market segregation, except that the people who still cannot afford to buy the product in their region cannot just download it).
To do nothing is to be nothing.
