Actually, GM's cost structure and unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities had a massive negative impact on that, equal or worse impact than their product mix.
Adam, really good point. There is so much more to this "lack of innovation" than just a confused web strategy. Newspapers are saddled with history, decades or even a century or more of union domination, complex labor and distribution agreements and such. Some of that is self-inflicted, some of that was mandated from without. Newspaper companies had diversified to a degree, but that was largely destroyed with all sorts of government administrative rulings over how many papers, or paper + TV, or paper+ radio combinations could be owned within one town or nationally. There are a few that have navigated all that and kept a somewhat diverse footprint, but most bailed and stick pretty close to print.
It's also important to note that newspaper printing is a capital-intensive operation. Printing plants and distribution networks take a lot of money to build and maintain. This creates cost overhead and operational inflexibility which is difficult to overcome.
I'm not suggesting that we weep for newspapers, but you are right to point out that there are factors - internal, contractual and governmental - which have stifled innovation for 30 years.
@Gordon, I agree with you IF that is happening. Of course, good (or even just decent) attorneys will scream bloody murder at those terms being thrown around in court.
In this article, however, the question is explicitly about what happens OUTSIDE the courtroom. As the author says "we step away from the antics inside the courtroom to look at the overall effect that media perceptions and propaganda might have on a case."
That's the problem with the whole jury system as it is currently allowed to operate. Anyone knowledgeable in any area relevant to a case (any case, not just copyright stuff) is immediately excluded. They only want folks ignorant of all relevant information. Very sad.
And before I get yelled at, I know this isn't a "crime" we're talking about, per se. I was just cribbing off of the old saying. And yes, I agree, I probably owe the original creator of that line 1.267 cents for using it without permission in a non-parody context. Ugh. This is why the laws DO so badly need to be changed.
Mike your comment "When the industry has been so successful in choosing language..." is off-the-mark. Have all these terms come from the "industry" by which I assume you mean recording industry groups? No. The pirate term has been applied (or misapplied, depending on how you look at it) for decades and across industries. "Illegal file sharing" is descriptive and factually correct, in many cases at least. "Copyright infringers" again, annoying but legally correct in many of the cases brought. And these terms are used and misused in day-to-day conversation by regular people, as well as by the media. I don't see the linguistic conspiracy here.
Look, emotionality aside, these cases hinge on whether existing law has been broken. So the language used to describe the parties in the case is going to have - very predictably, I'd note - a pro or con slant. I suppose we could call them "alleged pirates" or "not-yet-convicted alleged illegal file sharers" but that gets to be PC silly. It would result in some meaningless phrase akin to "motor vehicle operator who orally consumed a liquid" instead of "alleged drunk driver."
Anyway you slice it, these cases involve the alleged repurposing, copying or transmitting of content without permission of the content owner. I agree they are overwrought and crush the (very, very, very few in absolute numbers and percentages) folks they touch. But, under many current laws in many locations, this conduct is illegal and will be couched as such by the industry, the media reporting the case, and regular people talking about it. If you want to eliminate what you call linguistic "bias" - which is really just calling it what it is under current law - then change the law. Until then, like it or not, these cases don't always show just "computer users happily making use of infinite goods" but "illegal file sharers actively attempting to cover their tracks because they are breaking laws that are increasingly hard not to know about."
Hate to sound unsympathetic, especially to the crushing judgments that have come down on a couple of these cases. I do believe the laws need to change and have lent my one little voice to that effort. But if you don't want to do the time (and don't want to be on the negative end of this "biased" language) then simply don't do the alleged crime...for now.
A much more effective approach would be to simply deny the degree. Period. It's been probably 20 - 30 years since most major Universities spent and received the majority of their money on or for teaching-related activities, so I doubt it's really about money. It's more about feelings crap, self esteem, not wanting to confront and avoiding lots of litigation with angry parents who believe their precious boy or girl could NEVER cheat. Or lie. Or steal. Or drink. Or have sex. Ugh.
Definitely agree. A small number of complaints (or, say, dissenting voices in a forum) is generally representative of a much larger dissatisfied (or dissenting) population. Gosh, I hope Mike is reading this! ;-)
Hmmm...so regardless of how I comport myself professionally or whether I actually act ethically, if I mouth (or sign-up to) the words of the oath, I'm a-okay, but if I don't I'm a glorified accountant. That's a very thin place to be, intellectually.
I applaud the content and intent of the oath, but actions and applied ethics speak louder than any set of canned words.
I'm betting Madoff would have signed that oath in a heartbeat! :-)
Note especially the GDP per capita report PDF in the latter one. Also, note on Page 11 it shows that the number of hours worked in the US is behind not only Korea and Japan (kinda predictable), but Austria and Italy! Of course, this doesn't take into account what is really the point of Mike's post, which is the amount of non-work time spent, well, working. On this topic, my experience is that Americans do suffer greatly...email at night, phone calls at dinner, etc.
But still, your impression on several key points is absolutely off the mark.
Completely agree. The vast majority of workers in the US and Europe are not deeply technology tied. In fairness, Mike did throw a bone to this by writing "This again raises a question about whether "hourly" workers really make sense in many jobs these days." But limiting it to "many" jobs really dramatically overstates the relevance of this post to the vast majority of wage earners out there.
As to the main point intended - people should be compensated for the time they spend working all-in - I agree.
...unlike the RealDVD ruling, this one does not hold that Kaleidescape violated DMCA, rather just that they violated the agreement with DCCA. So while the result for consumers is the same - eliminating means to copy or backup DVDs, the actual reasons are materially different.
Yep...AC caught that above, too. My misunderstanding. You still related the JukeBox ruling and RealDVD, when the basis was entirely different. Not minor "details" as you say on your subsequent post about that case...key points.
Incorrect. In this case, the judge is slavishly following the law as written. It's annoying but predictable and reasonable, judicially speaking. When judges decide to legislate from the bench, the results are wildly unpredictable and typically buck the legislation in question. Not the case here.
Hate to say it, but the judge is right given the present law. Until DMCA is properly challenged at a higher court level, or changed, lower court judges will continue to interpret it for what it is. So, yes, very predictable.
I do have to call you out, Mike, on the comparison to the Kaleidescape case. With Kaleidescape, as I read it, they actually ADDED a layer of DRM to the copy made, much to the dissatisfaction of wealthy rippers everywhere (well, it did cost north of $20K). RealDVD strips DRM and leaves it wide open on any media and at any location you choose, like the ol' DVDXCopy. Very, very different cases.
And for the angry hoards, I completely agree that consumers should be able to make backup copies of any media they purchase, and play them ubiquitously on any of their computer or A/V equipment. So you'll get no argument form me on these points.
On the post: The Original Sin Of Newspapers: Not Innovating
Re: Re:
On the post: The Original Sin Of Newspapers: Not Innovating
Re: You're forgetting history
It's also important to note that newspaper printing is a capital-intensive operation. Printing plants and distribution networks take a lot of money to build and maintain. This creates cost overhead and operational inflexibility which is difficult to overcome.
I'm not suggesting that we weep for newspapers, but you are right to point out that there are factors - internal, contractual and governmental - which have stifled innovation for 30 years.
On the post: Can There Be A Fair File Sharing Trial When The Language Is All Biased?
Re: It's in the language of the laws themselves.
In this article, however, the question is explicitly about what happens OUTSIDE the courtroom. As the author says "we step away from the antics inside the courtroom to look at the overall effect that media perceptions and propaganda might have on a case."
On the post: Can There Be A Fair File Sharing Trial When The Language Is All Biased?
Re: co-opting the language
On the post: Can There Be A Fair File Sharing Trial When The Language Is All Biased?
Re:
On the post: Can There Be A Fair File Sharing Trial When The Language Is All Biased?
Re:
On the post: Can There Be A Fair File Sharing Trial When The Language Is All Biased?
Re: Re: Re: Who creates the language here?
On the post: Can There Be A Fair File Sharing Trial When The Language Is All Biased?
Re: Who creates the language here?
On the post: Can There Be A Fair File Sharing Trial When The Language Is All Biased?
Who creates the language here?
Look, emotionality aside, these cases hinge on whether existing law has been broken. So the language used to describe the parties in the case is going to have - very predictably, I'd note - a pro or con slant. I suppose we could call them "alleged pirates" or "not-yet-convicted alleged illegal file sharers" but that gets to be PC silly. It would result in some meaningless phrase akin to "motor vehicle operator who orally consumed a liquid" instead of "alleged drunk driver."
Anyway you slice it, these cases involve the alleged repurposing, copying or transmitting of content without permission of the content owner. I agree they are overwrought and crush the (very, very, very few in absolute numbers and percentages) folks they touch. But, under many current laws in many locations, this conduct is illegal and will be couched as such by the industry, the media reporting the case, and regular people talking about it. If you want to eliminate what you call linguistic "bias" - which is really just calling it what it is under current law - then change the law. Until then, like it or not, these cases don't always show just "computer users happily making use of infinite goods" but "illegal file sharers actively attempting to cover their tracks because they are breaking laws that are increasingly hard not to know about."
Hate to sound unsympathetic, especially to the crushing judgments that have come down on a couple of these cases. I do believe the laws need to change and have lent my one little voice to that effort. But if you don't want to do the time (and don't want to be on the negative end of this "biased" language) then simply don't do the alleged crime...for now.
On the post: University Offers New Grade For Cheating Students: FD
Deny the Degree
On the post: SitePoint: Rather Than Freaking Out Over Piracy, We Decided To Adapt
Re: Re: requests "pouring in"
On the post: Do Hourly Employees Even Make Sense Any More?
Re: Re:
I applaud the content and intent of the oath, but actions and applied ethics speak louder than any set of canned words.
I'm betting Madoff would have signed that oath in a heartbeat! :-)
On the post: Do Hourly Employees Even Make Sense Any More?
Re: American Labour Laws aren't an exemplar to the world.
Firstly, US Productivity is typically in the top five globally for all the measures I've seen.
Take a look here for a simple graph
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_ove_pro_ppp-economy-overall-productivity-ppp#source
or here for more detailed data
http://www.bls.gov/fls/#tables
Note especially the GDP per capita report PDF in the latter one. Also, note on Page 11 it shows that the number of hours worked in the US is behind not only Korea and Japan (kinda predictable), but Austria and Italy! Of course, this doesn't take into account what is really the point of Mike's post, which is the amount of non-work time spent, well, working. On this topic, my experience is that Americans do suffer greatly...email at night, phone calls at dinner, etc.
But still, your impression on several key points is absolutely off the mark.
On the post: Do Hourly Employees Even Make Sense Any More?
Re: Re: tech industry assumptions.
As to the main point intended - people should be compensated for the time they spend working all-in - I agree.
On the post: Hollywood Kills More Innovation; Judge Overturns DVD Jukebox Ruling
Interesting...
On the post: As Expected, Judge Still Bans Real From Selling RealDVD
Re: Re: Right Ruling on a Bad Law
On the post: As Expected, Judge Still Bans Real From Selling RealDVD
Re: Re: Right Ruling on a Bad Law
On the post: As Expected, Judge Still Bans Real From Selling RealDVD
Re: This is not for BACKUP purposes
On the post: As Expected, Judge Still Bans Real From Selling RealDVD
Re: I AM THE LAW!
On the post: As Expected, Judge Still Bans Real From Selling RealDVD
Right Ruling on a Bad Law
I do have to call you out, Mike, on the comparison to the Kaleidescape case. With Kaleidescape, as I read it, they actually ADDED a layer of DRM to the copy made, much to the dissatisfaction of wealthy rippers everywhere (well, it did cost north of $20K). RealDVD strips DRM and leaves it wide open on any media and at any location you choose, like the ol' DVDXCopy. Very, very different cases.
And for the angry hoards, I completely agree that consumers should be able to make backup copies of any media they purchase, and play them ubiquitously on any of their computer or A/V equipment. So you'll get no argument form me on these points.
Next >>