Mike McIntire, New York Times; Russia Renewed Unused Trump Trademarks in 2016
"Beyond the questions about Russian government approvals, the trademark renewals cast doubt on Mr. Trump’s oft-stated insistence that he has no business interests in Russia. Mr. Trump has made the claims in response to investigations of possible collusion between his associates and Russia during and after the election.
In January, he wrote on Twitter, “I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA — NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!” He told NBC News in May that he has “no investments in Russia, none whatsoever.” And on Thursday, he expressed frustration on Twitter over scrutiny of his “non-dealings” in Russia.
Although Mr. Trump has not managed to develop hotels in Russia despite attempts over the years, and has disclosed no active business ventures there, his intellectual property holdings are a valuable commercial interest. The extension of trademarks such as “Trump International Hotel and Tower” protects his brand in that country and preserves conditions for potential business deals."
Showing posts with label lack of transparency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lack of transparency. Show all posts
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Wikileaks release of TPP deal text stokes 'freedom of expression' fears; Guardian, 10/9/15
Sam Thielman, Guardian; Wikileaks release of TPP deal text stokes 'freedom of expression' fears:
"Among the provisions in the chapter (which may or may not be the most recent version) are rules that say that each country in the agreement has the authority to compel anyone accused of violating intellectual property law to provide “relevant information [...] that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls” as provided for in that country’s own laws. The rules also state that every country has the authority to immediately give the name and address of anyone importing detained goods to whoever owns the intellectual property. That information can be very broad, too: “Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement,” the document continues, “and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution.”"
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
What is Acta and what should I know about it?; Guardian, 11/11/09
Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; What is Acta and what should I know about it?:
""Unlike other high-powered government meetings – which are often accompanied by protests and brouhaha – Acta, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, has been progressing for two years without much fanfare.
Supporters say the treaty will help create a broad consensus on how to deal with counterfeit goods: the kind of legislation usually aimed at criminals who mass-manufacture and sell pirate DVDs, or flood the market with dangerous fake products such as batteries and electrical equipment. In truth, the treaty also contains suggestions for the control of internet content that some believe could radically alter the nature of copyright law worldwide.
According to information that leaked from a secret meeting in South Korea last week, officials are proposing new ways to deal with intellectual property infringement online, including a global three-strikes law that could effectively override any British laws, regardless of whether or not the controversial Mandelson plan goes through parliament...
On top of all this, say campaigners, Acta is being thrashed out in total secrecy – leaving everyone guessing at what laws might be on the way. Professor Michael Geist, a prominent legal expert at the University of Ottowa, says this cloak-and-dagger approach is part of a wider set of problems with the treaty.
"A copyright agreement is being treated akin to nuclear secrets, with virtually no transparency but for a few leaks that have emerged," he told CBC. "As a policy-making matter, it's enormously problematic – but then the provisions associated with the treaty are even more problematic."...
The US government appears to be pushing for three strikes – despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European parliament," said Gwen Hinze of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, adding that the leaks "confirmed everything that we feared"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/11/acta-trade-agreement
""Unlike other high-powered government meetings – which are often accompanied by protests and brouhaha – Acta, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, has been progressing for two years without much fanfare.
Supporters say the treaty will help create a broad consensus on how to deal with counterfeit goods: the kind of legislation usually aimed at criminals who mass-manufacture and sell pirate DVDs, or flood the market with dangerous fake products such as batteries and electrical equipment. In truth, the treaty also contains suggestions for the control of internet content that some believe could radically alter the nature of copyright law worldwide.
According to information that leaked from a secret meeting in South Korea last week, officials are proposing new ways to deal with intellectual property infringement online, including a global three-strikes law that could effectively override any British laws, regardless of whether or not the controversial Mandelson plan goes through parliament...
On top of all this, say campaigners, Acta is being thrashed out in total secrecy – leaving everyone guessing at what laws might be on the way. Professor Michael Geist, a prominent legal expert at the University of Ottowa, says this cloak-and-dagger approach is part of a wider set of problems with the treaty.
"A copyright agreement is being treated akin to nuclear secrets, with virtually no transparency but for a few leaks that have emerged," he told CBC. "As a policy-making matter, it's enormously problematic – but then the provisions associated with the treaty are even more problematic."...
The US government appears to be pushing for three strikes – despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European parliament," said Gwen Hinze of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, adding that the leaks "confirmed everything that we feared"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/11/acta-trade-agreement
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Why did Big Brother remove paid-for content from Amazon's Kindles?; Guardian, 7/22/09
Bobbie Johnson via Guardian; Why did Big Brother remove paid-for content from Amazon's Kindles?: Kindle users were left seething when Amazon removed paid-for content from their devices, while the Popfly and GeoCities services are to close. How did we lose control of the digital products we use?:
""Amazon offered a product, which I legally purchased, and had in my possession until their electronic burglar stole it from me," said another affected user. "Amazon has no right to go into my Kindle's memory and delete something without my knowledge or permission."
Why were people so offended? Customers weren't really angry about the gadget, or the legality of the booksin question – they were furious with the sleight of hand Amazon performed by secretly removing them from their machines. They were aggrieved because they thought they had bought the books when in fact, it turned out, they were merely renting them.
"We have long been concerned that digital rights management is essentially tricking people," says Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the campaign group based in San Francisco. "It's creating a situation where people think they've purchased something – in the way you might purchase a pair of shoes, for example. But from the perspective of the seller, and often from the perspective of the law, it's quite a lot less."
Digital wrongs
No wonder Amazon customers were so annoyed: it's as if they walked into a bookshop to pick up a new best-seller, only to discover later that the shop was actually a library and they had to give it back.
In the past, arguments over these sorts of issues have focused heavily on the use of digital rights management (DRM), the copy protection software that makes it difficult to rip DVDs to your computer, for example, even for personal use.
But the Kindle debacle is more than just book-banning or copyright infringement. There is something even more pernicious going on: not only do these systems restrict your ability to do what you want with your media – they also change the basic DNA of the thing you're purchasing.
So what exactly are we buying into these days?
"If you think of a book as a piece of data, the idea that you own it but then it can be zapped or taken away at any time – I think that's extremely counter-intuitive," says Jonathan Zittrain, professor of internet law at Harvard Law School, who has been watching the situation closely. "Yet it's the way the architecture can work, unless we build in protections."
In his 2008 book The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, Zittrain warned that devices to store data and code are increasingly becoming information appliances that are controlled by the manufacturer, not the user – precisely the situation the Kindle has presented...
Ed Felten, professor of computer science at Princeton University, says the problem is a "lack of transparency".
"If customers had known this sort of thing were possible, they would have spoken up against it," he wrote on his blog, Freedom to Tinker."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/22/kindle-amazon-digital-rights
""Amazon offered a product, which I legally purchased, and had in my possession until their electronic burglar stole it from me," said another affected user. "Amazon has no right to go into my Kindle's memory and delete something without my knowledge or permission."
Why were people so offended? Customers weren't really angry about the gadget, or the legality of the booksin question – they were furious with the sleight of hand Amazon performed by secretly removing them from their machines. They were aggrieved because they thought they had bought the books when in fact, it turned out, they were merely renting them.
"We have long been concerned that digital rights management is essentially tricking people," says Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the campaign group based in San Francisco. "It's creating a situation where people think they've purchased something – in the way you might purchase a pair of shoes, for example. But from the perspective of the seller, and often from the perspective of the law, it's quite a lot less."
Digital wrongs
No wonder Amazon customers were so annoyed: it's as if they walked into a bookshop to pick up a new best-seller, only to discover later that the shop was actually a library and they had to give it back.
In the past, arguments over these sorts of issues have focused heavily on the use of digital rights management (DRM), the copy protection software that makes it difficult to rip DVDs to your computer, for example, even for personal use.
But the Kindle debacle is more than just book-banning or copyright infringement. There is something even more pernicious going on: not only do these systems restrict your ability to do what you want with your media – they also change the basic DNA of the thing you're purchasing.
So what exactly are we buying into these days?
"If you think of a book as a piece of data, the idea that you own it but then it can be zapped or taken away at any time – I think that's extremely counter-intuitive," says Jonathan Zittrain, professor of internet law at Harvard Law School, who has been watching the situation closely. "Yet it's the way the architecture can work, unless we build in protections."
In his 2008 book The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, Zittrain warned that devices to store data and code are increasingly becoming information appliances that are controlled by the manufacturer, not the user – precisely the situation the Kindle has presented...
Ed Felten, professor of computer science at Princeton University, says the problem is a "lack of transparency".
"If customers had known this sort of thing were possible, they would have spoken up against it," he wrote on his blog, Freedom to Tinker."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/22/kindle-amazon-digital-rights
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Net pirates face three-strikes rule; Sydney Morning Herald, 7/16/09
Ashe Moses via Sydney Morning Herald; Net pirates face three-strikes rule:
"People who are caught repeatedly downloading movies, music and TV shows illegally would have their internet disconnected under legislative changes being considered by the [Australian]Federal Government.
The movie and music industries have been pushing ISPs to implement this "three-strikes" scheme voluntarily for years but talks have stalled...
The three-strikes scheme has been proposed in both France and New Zealand, but both countries dropped the proposal after a public backlash.
This week both France and New Zealand reintroduced new, modified three-strikes proposals with enhanced judicial oversight.
Britain is also reportedly considering three-strikes legislation, and the British Government outlined a goal of reducing unlawful file sharing by 70-80 per cent by 2011 in its Digital Britain report, released last month."
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/net-pirates-face-threestrikes-rule-20090716-dm9s.html?page=1
"People who are caught repeatedly downloading movies, music and TV shows illegally would have their internet disconnected under legislative changes being considered by the [Australian]Federal Government.
The movie and music industries have been pushing ISPs to implement this "three-strikes" scheme voluntarily for years but talks have stalled...
The three-strikes scheme has been proposed in both France and New Zealand, but both countries dropped the proposal after a public backlash.
This week both France and New Zealand reintroduced new, modified three-strikes proposals with enhanced judicial oversight.
Britain is also reportedly considering three-strikes legislation, and the British Government outlined a goal of reducing unlawful file sharing by 70-80 per cent by 2011 in its Digital Britain report, released last month."
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/net-pirates-face-threestrikes-rule-20090716-dm9s.html?page=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)