Very well, now that you have seen this, let us carry one.
The following is an abstract taken for a Wikileaks Podesta email attachment (I forgot to archive the actual source, but is you have an issue with this, the link to the actual report is here.)
Copyright law has a framing problem. The problem is pervasive,Zooming in, I believe, is going to be applied to an array of intellectual property matters, from copyrights to patents and trademarks. so, allow me to explain why.
unresolved, and often unnoticed, and it significantly impacts the nature and
scope of copyright protection. Many copyrighted goods can be framed as one
comprehensive whole, an approach we call “zooming out,” or as a
combination of many small works, as approach we call “zooming in”. This
framing choice is apparent across many areas of copyright law. Courts need to
choose whether to zoom in or zoom out on works to determine how much of a
work has been copied, which is relevant for purposes of both fair use analysis
and for applying the substantial similarity tests; to count how many works were
infringed for purposes of determining the multiplier for statutory damages; and
to decide who are the authors of complex works.
See, it goes like this:
Once upon a time George H.W. Bush, came up with this brilliant idea to privatize everything in government through a special procurement doctrine of chattels.
In short, the government owns everything, as commerce, because vital statistics, the Census, is considered, through privatization, human capital.
All that rich, raw data could never possibly be reposited directly into the cabinet agency databases without a little help, so, the "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) came up with this great idea of Public Private Partnerships, where no one could ever be caught stealin' because severed the "contractual arm" concept and replaced it some psuedo-AI crap of what they call "authorities" to operate as the almighty gatekeeper of what is now the private domain.
When these corporations contract with the federal government to administer and "maximize revenues" for the Social Impact Bond investors, they typically sell, or lease, software platforms that run these data.
Those "other" software platforms, which are intellectual property in the forms of patents and trademarks, come up with a highly sophisticated legal argument that will take any run of the mill case of fraud and wiggle a way out of liability.
Serco has the contract for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office administration.
Serco has subsidiaries which own lots of these software platforms used by privately contracted third party federal administrators, which means any data input into their systems, or in the case of the DNC lawsuit, data extraction, would have to walk through walls of fire to figure out who and what to subpoena.
The concept of using intellectual property as a financial instrument is more than that, it is a way to shield these NGOs engaging in the trafficking of tiny humans and generating child abuse propaganda, to make more money so they can keep doing what they are doing, stealin' , oh, and using tiny humans as lab rats in biomedical research that they bill to Medicaid.
Using Ideas Strategically: The Contest Between Business and NGO Networks in Intellectual Property Rights
Whose ideas matter? And how do actors make them matter? Focusing on the strategic deployment of competing normative frameworks, that is, framing issues and grafting private agendas on policy debates, we examine the contentious politics of the contemporary international intellectual property rights regime. We compare the business victory in the establishment of the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property (TRIPS) in the World Trade Organization with the subsequent NGO campaign against enforcing TRIPS to ensure access to essential HIV/AIDS medicines. Our analysis challenges constructivist scholarship that emphasizes the distinction between various types of transnational networks based on instrumental versus normative orientations. We question the portrayal of business firms as strictly instrumental actors preoccupied with material concerns, and NGOs as motivated solely by principled, or non-material beliefs. Yet we also offer a friendly amendment to constructivism by demonstrating its applicability to the analysis of business. Treating the business and NGO networks as competing interest groups driven by their normative ideals and material concerns, we demonstrate that these networks' strategies and activities are remarkably similar.This is what that Clinton, et al cabal is attempting to cover up by reanimating the law of chattels to justify what they are doing.
They are going to claim parental rights to all data used against them through the gift of the grant of guardianship and custodianship of data through a public private partnership accredited through a fake authority.
To every cow hath calf, so book have copy.
On a mission...
Wikileaks Podest Email Attachment on Framing Copyrighted Works 021216 by Beverly Tran on Scribd
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
1 comment:
The DNC lawsuit is fake because it never filed its Corporate Parent disclosure for legal standing.
Post a Comment