If he had put that web surfing time into searching Ray Beckerman's archives he would know it only costs $200 an hour to get the RIAA's forensic expert (Doug Jacobson) to testify that a lack of evidence is actually proof there's a second computer. Beckerman already did all the hard work by establishing Jacobson is only "borderline incompetent."
For another C-note he might even change his name to Alan Cooper. Just tell him it's like witness protection from his reputation.
at best, a system like this just helps to prevent some of the bigger mistakes, rather than attacking any of the fundamental problems.
Perhaps for now that's true, but it also potentially helps build a mountain of evidence about those problems which can be referenced by critics of the current system. In my experience every discussion with people who haven't taken a close look for themselves pretty much requires you to begin with a mountain of explanation and evidence too big for them to get through before they tune out.
On the other hand if you could simply point them to a bunch of submissions like this it would be both simpler to understand and more convincing. You and I may not see evidence which comes from the USPTO process more relevant, but I think most people would. Most of those same people would dismiss an economics paper with what we see as clear and convincing arguments as simply one person's opinion.
That's understandable considering most of what the public is exposed to in that field is really political punditry in disguise. It has as much in common with the study of economics as Chicken McNuggets do with traditional southern fried chicken.
This is the most awesome idea ever! It will both revolutionize and save the entertainment industry.
Just think of it. Give musicians and their record labels a cut of all proceeds from the restaurants and bars around concert venues. Movie producers can take the theaters and TV stations can stick their hands in the pockets of all those places, assuming they have TVs, and all kinds of other businesses who put in a TV "for their customers' convenience." Convenience my ass! You're all just a bunch of thieves.
Heck, why bother with all the geographic details. Let's just assume anyone who gets money from the public is freeloading off some copyright holder, impose a fair tax (25% of revenue sounds reasonable) and let them fight among themselves to divide it up.
I'm in pretty much the same boat when it comes to 3D. The most 3D effect I've ever gotten was during the closing credits of a couple movies. And even though my hearing is excellent my stereo is an older model without HDMI or 6 channel inputs which I refuse to replace because music sounds so good through it. I don't even own a HDTV. I'm still watching an old 27-inch analog monster.
The irony is I had to buy a Blu-ray player and burner so I could write technical guides for the technology. Which is okay since I find that side of things more interesting anyway.
There are a couple of major differences with respect to Blu-ray. The first is the licensing requirements for player manufacturers which don't allow a lot of discretion when it comes to restrictions. Although I don't know specifically about region locks, I know all the DRM "features" are mandatory. On the other hand that apparently I've read that at least one company has made one or two models capable of playing commercial (pressed) Blu-ray discs without Aggressive Anti Consumer Screwing (AACS) encryption which is a violation of the agreement.
I wouldn't be surprised if out of the blue, America started to claim that it had a problem with whatever New Zealand is doing and used that as an excuse to do something really stupid.
Clearly you are not well versed in American history. Excuses are for pansies. We'll skip right to the something really stupid part thank you very much!
This is merely another example of why we need even stronger copyright laws. Judge Harvey's blatant attempt to profit from the wholesale copying of our founding fathers' stand against state sponsored corporate profiteering is frankly offensive. How long will the rest of the world continue to reap the rewards of our ancestors' struggle against the tyranny of the British East India Company?
Such morally reprehensible behavior only underscores the debt owed by citizens of every free country around the world for the efforts of those great Americans. I shudder to think what would become of our allies should we find ourselves unable to sustain our output of freedom to the rest of the world. And yet these people who owe us so much, who relied on us to keep the world safe as recently as the late 1980s, have the arrogance to declare that the world has changed and we must change with it.
I reject that notion. The decline in US geopolitical and economic influence which has been building since the end of the Cold War threatens nothing less than the collapse of the free world as we know it. It is well and good to praise the rise of democracy in Eastern Europe, but who among these fledgling democracies has the power to stand up to the likes of China? And can we rely on the people of India or Brazil to spend tens of billions of dollars on consumer goods in support of capitalism? If we learned nothing else in the latter half of the 20th century, we should have learned this. As the US goes, so goes the world.
Cookie cutter pop stars certainly go back much further than the 1960s. Benny Goodman's big band, perhaps the first pop stars produced by radio (in the mid-1930s), became national stars playing arrangements copied from Fletcher Henderson's band. Not to disparage Goodman for things which certainly weren't his fault, but it's hard to imagine anything could have made NBC Radio any happier than a cookie cutter copy of Henderson's sound.
It would be insulting to compare Goodman's band with what record labels learned to manufacture for themselves later, and his use of another bandleader's arrangements was purely a practical decision. Lacking arrangements of his own to immediately begin filling a 3 hour radio show, Goodman's career likely wouldn't have lasted beyond his first show if not for his decision to pay Henderson for his arrangements. Certainly it's hard to imagine Goodman or any of his sidemen being the least bit offended if someone mistook their early performances for those of first, and some would say greatest, big band ever.
The real irony here is that this ultimately decides nothing. The cable companies want to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Boxee is fighting to leave them where they are. Either way, the ship is going down. Neither side can change that. The real question is whether anyone can fix the gaping hole in the side before we have to start over with a new boat.
That's a bigger job than anyone expected, but in retrospect it's really not surprising. The broadcast industry isn't controlled by cable companies or broadcasters. It's controlled by both of them together. They may not like or trust each other, but when it comes to real change they are united against it. In form they are a collection of companies in 2 separate but interrelated industries. Functionally they are a vertically integrated cartel.
That does not, however, make them impervious to disruption. The reason every attempt so far, from companies like Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, Google, and even Boxee, has fallen short is because none of those companies had any leverage. You can't disrupt just the cable provider or just the network. You have to disrupt the whole system.
For example, you might start by installing your own broadband Internet service, like say the one Google is building in Kansas City. Then perhaps you reach out to the networks to start your own pay TV service, which Google has also done. Then maybe you would buy a cable set-top box manufacturer, like Google is doing with Motorola Mobility. Now at this point you've taken the cable company out of the loop, but the networks can still ignore you, so you go one step further.
Rather than setting up your antenna farm in Kansas City, which would be the most efficient way to deliver video, you locate it 270 miles away in Council Bluffs, Iowa. You do that because Council Bluffs is home to your closest datacenter. Perhaps the reason you chose Kansas City for your fiber network was the same reason you put your datacenter in Council Bluffs, which is right next to Omaha, Nebraska. Both are major hubs for Internet backbone connections, making the distance basically trivial.
Now you have leverage. If your antenna farm is at your datacenter, odds are you were planning to offer a cloud based DVR and on demand service. If the networks don't want to play ball you can always let your customers upload their own videos to it.
Which one would Warner Brothers prefer, people uploading their movies to the cloud or those same people paying to watch TV? Disney would probably be the hardest sell. They own ESPN which is the most expensive pay TV channel around and the biggest argument for a la carte channel selections, which I'm guessing Google is pushing for anyway. The point is, the networks will still see Google as the enemy, but uploading videos to the cloud is the real bogeyman.
Of course Google is going to need a custom set-top box. They could get something off the shelf from Motorola, but why do that when you're already working on a box of your own. We already know Google is testing a streaming appliance and the rumor is Google Music will be its only service initially. The thing is, that doesn't really make sense.
If you own YouTube, the single most popular streaming site in the world, why leave it off your appliance that connects to home theater equipment? Maybe it's really a Google Fiber set-top box and they know how much everybody in the TV business hates YouTube. Google Music isn't threatening. The networks aren't selling music and Google Music isn't serving video. Besides, it's just a substitute for the digital music channels everybody else is including with the cable and satellite packages.
Now I could be completely wrong about Google. Maybe they haven't learned anything from Google TV's failure. But if I'm right and they have learned their lesson, the big revolution in TV may be right around the corner. Once they get their foot in the door, every pay TV provider in the country is going to start thinking about adding their own cloud services and the floodgates will open for Apple, Microsoft, and even Boxee.
If I'm wrong, maybe it's a good time to pick up a lifejacket
On one hand, as an audiophile I'm sympathetic to Young's complaints. At the same time, his track record on providing high quality audio is a business model disaster. I consider that a shame since I happen to be a big Neil Young fan, especially his Crazy Horse releases.
He has already begun releasing his back catalog on Blu-ray to maximize sound quality, but there's no chance I could (or would) pay $35 per album or $300 for a 10 disc set. Especially when he seems to have made a point of leaving some songs out.
That's a ripoff even compared to HDtracks, where I can buy FLAC downloads which aren't infested with DRM. With most albums costing $18 ($23 for a double album), I still consider their prices too high. But at least they are trying to make their product more compelling. You can even spend an equally ridiculous $2.50 to buy most tracks individually if that's what you prefer.
The bottom line is this. Neil Young really only pays lip service to expanding the popularity of high quality formats. Considering most people can't tell the difference, making it more expensive and generally less accessible has exactly no chance of doing that.
I disagree. A person does not have the time or resources. The people do. I don't hold every person responsible to police the government single handedly. I do hold every person responsible for doing what they can. If a quarter of the population held themselves to the same standard, keeping the government in check would be child's play. Hell, 10 percent would probably be enough.
You couldn't be more right Mike. Democracy is something which can only be taken by demand of the people. And it must be maintained the same way. That has always been the case, and always will be. It's natural for people who crave power to abuse it, and also to rationalize that abuse as something noble and necessary. Living in a democracy does not eliminate those tendencies. It merely provides us with mechanisms to counteract them.
This is not a new idea. Thomas Jefferson said as much more than 200 years ago.
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
We are lucky to live in times when rebellion may be accomplished without violence. But make no mistake, the type of changes required are rebellion in civilized clothing. Solving our problems requires imposing our will on the government. We are not dealing with a few isolated instances of corruption. The taint of corruption permeates the government. Naked corruption has become so commonplace the powerful feel secure flaunting their misconduct and contempt for the people in full public view.
Corporate executives run companies into the ground with no real fear of the consequences. If there's a government regulation they want or don't want, or maybe just a subsidy to keep their books in the black, it's off to the first bank of Congress to make a deposit and drop off a bill. Or maybe the White House with a satchel of cash and the details of an untested, unreliable, unnecessary product some government agency could really benefit from.
Whatever damage gets done to their employees, or customers, or shareholder, or the whole damn economy gets passed on to the rest of us. Maybe we're paying unemployment for all the jobs they destroyed, or maybe it's housing subsidies for the employees and retirees whose pensions they looted. But you can bet they'll have the audacity to lecture us later about how guilty we should feel for asking them to pay a higher tax rate on their hard earned money. And Congress will react by holding out the tip jar.
The Democrats did not do this. The Republicans did not do this. They all did it, and by allowing them to do it, the people were accomplices. In a democracy it is your responsibility to police the government. If you see the broken system and do nothing, you're part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem. It's time to stand up and say, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!"
So basically eBay is being sued because their online auctions work like offline auctions. Or more accurately, because they don't offer the seller the advantages of both regular and sealed bid auctions.
Actually, this doesn't appear to be a true giveaway, at least not by Sony. The service is provided by a company called Library Ideas, and according to at least one librarian who has dealt with them, they aren't really offering much of a deal at all, and appear to be at least a little on the slimy side.
On the post: More Prenda Insanity: Lawyer Claims Defendant Erased Infringing Activity Using A Registry Cleaner, Citing A Single EHow Submission
For another C-note he might even change his name to Alan Cooper. Just tell him it's like witness protection from his reputation.
On the post: StackExchange, Google Team Up With USPTO To Help Crowdsource Prior Art Discovery
Perhaps for now that's true, but it also potentially helps build a mountain of evidence about those problems which can be referenced by critics of the current system. In my experience every discussion with people who haven't taken a close look for themselves pretty much requires you to begin with a mountain of explanation and evidence too big for them to get through before they tune out.
On the other hand if you could simply point them to a bunch of submissions like this it would be both simpler to understand and more convincing. You and I may not see evidence which comes from the USPTO process more relevant, but I think most people would. Most of those same people would dismiss an economics paper with what we see as clear and convincing arguments as simply one person's opinion.
That's understandable considering most of what the public is exposed to in that field is really political punditry in disguise. It has as much in common with the study of economics as Chicken McNuggets do with traditional southern fried chicken.
On the post: Old Lady Ruins Fresco, Claims Copyright, Demands Money
Just think of it. Give musicians and their record labels a cut of all proceeds from the restaurants and bars around concert venues. Movie producers can take the theaters and TV stations can stick their hands in the pockets of all those places, assuming they have TVs, and all kinds of other businesses who put in a TV "for their customers' convenience." Convenience my ass! You're all just a bunch of thieves.
Heck, why bother with all the geographic details. Let's just assume anyone who gets money from the public is freeloading off some copyright holder, impose a fair tax (25% of revenue sounds reasonable) and let them fight among themselves to divide it up.
On the post: NZ Judge In Dotcom Extradition Case Speaks Out Against TPP & US Copyright Extremism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The irony is I had to buy a Blu-ray player and burner so I could write technical guides for the technology. Which is okay since I find that side of things more interesting anyway.
On the post: NZ Judge In Dotcom Extradition Case Speaks Out Against TPP & US Copyright Extremism
Re: Re:
On the post: NZ Judge In Dotcom Extradition Case Speaks Out Against TPP & US Copyright Extremism
Re: And then Suddenly
Clearly you are not well versed in American history. Excuses are for pansies. We'll skip right to the something really stupid part thank you very much!
On the post: NZ Judge In Dotcom Extradition Case Speaks Out Against TPP & US Copyright Extremism
Re: Re:
"We'll give him a fair trial... and then we'll hang him."
On the post: NZ Judge In Dotcom Extradition Case Speaks Out Against TPP & US Copyright Extremism
Such morally reprehensible behavior only underscores the debt owed by citizens of every free country around the world for the efforts of those great Americans. I shudder to think what would become of our allies should we find ourselves unable to sustain our output of freedom to the rest of the world. And yet these people who owe us so much, who relied on us to keep the world safe as recently as the late 1980s, have the arrogance to declare that the world has changed and we must change with it.
I reject that notion. The decline in US geopolitical and economic influence which has been building since the end of the Cold War threatens nothing less than the collapse of the free world as we know it. It is well and good to praise the rise of democracy in Eastern Europe, but who among these fledgling democracies has the power to stand up to the likes of China? And can we rely on the people of India or Brazil to spend tens of billions of dollars on consumer goods in support of capitalism? If we learned nothing else in the latter half of the 20th century, we should have learned this. As the US goes, so goes the world.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
On the post: The New Elitism: File Sharing 'Created' Pop Music And Removing Gatekeepers Is 'Killing Culture'
Radio was built by cookie cutter pop stars
It would be insulting to compare Goodman's band with what record labels learned to manufacture for themselves later, and his use of another bandleader's arrangements was purely a practical decision. Lacking arrangements of his own to immediately begin filling a 3 hour radio show, Goodman's career likely wouldn't have lasted beyond his first show if not for his decision to pay Henderson for his arrangements. Certainly it's hard to imagine Goodman or any of his sidemen being the least bit offended if someone mistook their early performances for those of first, and some would say greatest, big band ever.
On the post: Boxee Ramps Up Its Fight To Stop The FCC From Letting Cable Companies Effectively Break Its Device
That's a bigger job than anyone expected, but in retrospect it's really not surprising. The broadcast industry isn't controlled by cable companies or broadcasters. It's controlled by both of them together. They may not like or trust each other, but when it comes to real change they are united against it. In form they are a collection of companies in 2 separate but interrelated industries. Functionally they are a vertically integrated cartel.
That does not, however, make them impervious to disruption. The reason every attempt so far, from companies like Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, Google, and even Boxee, has fallen short is because none of those companies had any leverage. You can't disrupt just the cable provider or just the network. You have to disrupt the whole system.
For example, you might start by installing your own broadband Internet service, like say the one Google is building in Kansas City. Then perhaps you reach out to the networks to start your own pay TV service, which Google has also done. Then maybe you would buy a cable set-top box manufacturer, like Google is doing with Motorola Mobility. Now at this point you've taken the cable company out of the loop, but the networks can still ignore you, so you go one step further.
Rather than setting up your antenna farm in Kansas City, which would be the most efficient way to deliver video, you locate it 270 miles away in Council Bluffs, Iowa. You do that because Council Bluffs is home to your closest datacenter. Perhaps the reason you chose Kansas City for your fiber network was the same reason you put your datacenter in Council Bluffs, which is right next to Omaha, Nebraska. Both are major hubs for Internet backbone connections, making the distance basically trivial.
Now you have leverage. If your antenna farm is at your datacenter, odds are you were planning to offer a cloud based DVR and on demand service. If the networks don't want to play ball you can always let your customers upload their own videos to it.
Which one would Warner Brothers prefer, people uploading their movies to the cloud or those same people paying to watch TV? Disney would probably be the hardest sell. They own ESPN which is the most expensive pay TV channel around and the biggest argument for a la carte channel selections, which I'm guessing Google is pushing for anyway. The point is, the networks will still see Google as the enemy, but uploading videos to the cloud is the real bogeyman.
Of course Google is going to need a custom set-top box. They could get something off the shelf from Motorola, but why do that when you're already working on a box of your own. We already know Google is testing a streaming appliance and the rumor is Google Music will be its only service initially. The thing is, that doesn't really make sense.
If you own YouTube, the single most popular streaming site in the world, why leave it off your appliance that connects to home theater equipment? Maybe it's really a Google Fiber set-top box and they know how much everybody in the TV business hates YouTube. Google Music isn't threatening. The networks aren't selling music and Google Music isn't serving video. Besides, it's just a substitute for the digital music channels everybody else is including with the cable and satellite packages.
Now I could be completely wrong about Google. Maybe they haven't learned anything from Google TV's failure. But if I'm right and they have learned their lesson, the big revolution in TV may be right around the corner. Once they get their foot in the door, every pay TV provider in the country is going to start thinking about adding their own cloud services and the floodgates will open for Apple, Microsoft, and even Boxee.
If I'm wrong, maybe it's a good time to pick up a lifejacket
On the post: Neil Young: Piracy Is The New Radio (But The Quality Sucks)
He has already begun releasing his back catalog on Blu-ray to maximize sound quality, but there's no chance I could (or would) pay $35 per album or $300 for a 10 disc set. Especially when he seems to have made a point of leaving some songs out.
That's a ripoff even compared to HDtracks, where I can buy FLAC downloads which aren't infested with DRM. With most albums costing $18 ($23 for a double album), I still consider their prices too high. But at least they are trying to make their product more compelling. You can even spend an equally ridiculous $2.50 to buy most tracks individually if that's what you prefer.
The bottom line is this. Neil Young really only pays lip service to expanding the popularity of high quality formats. Considering most people can't tell the difference, making it more expensive and generally less accessible has exactly no chance of doing that.
On the post: SOPA/PIPA: How Far We've Come; How Far We Need To Go
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: SOPA/PIPA: How Far We've Come; How Far We Need To Go
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: SOPA/PIPA: How Far We've Come; How Far We Need To Go
Re: Re:
On the post: SOPA/PIPA: How Far We've Come; How Far We Need To Go
This is not a new idea. Thomas Jefferson said as much more than 200 years ago.
We are lucky to live in times when rebellion may be accomplished without violence. But make no mistake, the type of changes required are rebellion in civilized clothing. Solving our problems requires imposing our will on the government. We are not dealing with a few isolated instances of corruption. The taint of corruption permeates the government. Naked corruption has become so commonplace the powerful feel secure flaunting their misconduct and contempt for the people in full public view.
Corporate executives run companies into the ground with no real fear of the consequences. If there's a government regulation they want or don't want, or maybe just a subsidy to keep their books in the black, it's off to the first bank of Congress to make a deposit and drop off a bill. Or maybe the White House with a satchel of cash and the details of an untested, unreliable, unnecessary product some government agency could really benefit from.
Whatever damage gets done to their employees, or customers, or shareholder, or the whole damn economy gets passed on to the rest of us. Maybe we're paying unemployment for all the jobs they destroyed, or maybe it's housing subsidies for the employees and retirees whose pensions they looted. But you can bet they'll have the audacity to lecture us later about how guilty we should feel for asking them to pay a higher tax rate on their hard earned money. And Congress will react by holding out the tip jar.
The Democrats did not do this. The Republicans did not do this. They all did it, and by allowing them to do it, the people were accomplices. In a democracy it is your responsibility to police the government. If you see the broken system and do nothing, you're part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem. It's time to stand up and say, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!"
On the post: Boo-Freaking-Hoo: RIAA Complains That 'The Deck Is Stacked' Against Them On CES Panels
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Boo-Freaking-Hoo: RIAA Complains That 'The Deck Is Stacked' Against Them On CES Panels
On the post: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against eBay Because Of The Way Its Auctions Work
On the post: D.C. Libraries Offering Free, DRM-Free MP3 Downloads From Sony Music
Re:
On the post: D.C. Libraries Offering Free, DRM-Free MP3 Downloads From Sony Music
Free? I think not.
http://librarianinblack.net/librarianinblack/2011/04/just-say-no-to-freegal.html
Apparen tly the library pays at least $1 per download on average, and the company has horrible customer service.
Next >>