While copyright owners are entitled to certain privileges so that they can make some money, the word "strengthening" when applied to copyright is doublespeak for aggrandizing the privileges of the copyright holder by depriving the content users of their privileges. I wouldn't be adverse to "clarifications" that better define how the monetary (not privileges) pie is to be sliced between the content producer and use.
And You Wonder Why Consumers Have Little Respect F
In the span of two short days Techdirt has reported how companies seek to prevent the public from knowing of negative comments, how Best Buy is misleading its customers, and how corporations whine about the cost of being honest.
If corporations expect honesty from their customers, they need to set a good example. PS: We can hope.
Unfortunately, I do not have any hands-on experience with Sarbanes-Oxley. However, this discussion fits the normal pattern of corporate whining that ANY regulation is too expensive. While complying with regulations may be "expensive", corporations don't seem to have any problem with finding money to provide executives with multi-million dollar pay packages or arranging guaranteed capital gains for their executives by back-dating options. If corporations don't want onerous regulation, why not be ethical to begin with?
We have a government of, by, and for the corporations.
Marketing is also the "drug" of choice. As with any addict, as the (marketing) drug wears off, the solution is ever more drug. Meanwhile, the vast majority consumers are numbed out and pissed-off. Too bad that - through the "law-of-large-numbers" - there are apparently enough suckers to make spam profitable.
"support the idea of allowing spectrum to be leased and sold in general" (emphasis added)
Big mistake. I have no problem with the FCC leasing spectrum. However, the spectrum is a public resource. If spectrum is actually sold we would end up with a private FCC that would have the look and feel of the RIAA and the MPAA. Do we really need another private entity that has no regards for consumer rights?
In theory the FCC manages the spectrum for the public good. If privatized we would have all sorts of slippery slope arguments over who owns what and what one can do. This would be a nightmare.
"state's ability to seize proprietary information"
When a copyright or patent expires it goes into the public domain where anyone has the freedom to benefit by it. The state is not seizing anything.
"that your proprietary use" of the property had expired?"
There are many types of property. Land is one of those types of property that has a long life. However, other forms of property such as cars and computers have a short life. In fact their value tends to depreciate as newer and better cars and computers are introduced. In the end the monetary value of old cars and computers can actually be negative since you have to pay the garbage guy to pick the junk up and haul it away.
I would advocate that the "value" of copyrighted material is also subject to economic factors such as depreciation (not in the physical sense) and competition. What has value today for the consumer may be valueless tomorrow. An author may believe his work is worth $1 Million. However, if no consumer is willing to pay, it sits on the shelf and benefits no one.
Clearly you agree that copyright should be restricted to a limited period of time. While, I can agree that publishers who have invested in bringing a work to market may be entitled to a royalty, the purpose of copyright is not to provide a welfare payment to the creators/investors. The purpose of copyright is to provide a limited monopoly to promote the progress of science and the arts.
Promoting the progress of science and the arts means that copyright must only be for a limited period of time. We live in a free market system were the producers must produce to make money, not a royalty (welfare) system that obstructs future innovation through legal gymnastics.
If you can't recover your "investment" by the time the copyright expires, too bad. You simply made an incorrect business decision. Time to move on.
The assertion that copyright protection is necessary is too simplistic and obscures what this debate is really about. First, I think that the majority of people acknowledge that a limited copyright is acceptable. What is unacceptable is the aggrandizement of content producer "rights" through the "stealing" of consumer rights. The consumer has rights too.
Other shortcomings include: 1) the concept that content producers need "protection" or they won't produce. Many people produce content based simply on personnel desire, 2) content producers seem to believe that content has some sort of intrinsic value. This is hogwash, content only has value if a demand exists for that content.
The absurdity of an infinite copyright, after many generations we would all be paying ourselves a royalty. Just think of the legal and accounting complexity (nightmare) of each heir trying to determine/fight the %%%%% of "ownership". This is a full employment plan for lawyers and accountants and does nothing to promote further innovation.
What was distressing with the new "copyright alliance" is their red herring of "protecting" copyright by making it "stronger". What they do not say is that the are aggrandizing the rights of the content holder by stealing the existing rights of the content users.
Many people loudly advocate in bright lights the "free market", but when you think deeper about what they are actually implying it seems more like a welfare system than an open market. Solveig Singleton's paper states that the downstream users should willing pay all those who developed the so-called intellectual property. On the surface this may seem reasonable, especially for a recently developed device/book/movie etc. But for something that was developed 100 or more years ago, this is akin to welfare payments. Guaranteed income for no work.
Furthermore, in terms of economics, the royalty (welfare) paid to the content provider becomes a perpetual tax on the product, it artificially increases the cost of the product that the consumer is buying.
Lets look at this from a slightly different angle. If you buy an asset like a car, the value of that asset depreciates over time. At a certain point it becomes "worthless". The content industry does not seem to accept this fact that their content can become worthless. The DVD clearance bin at Wallmart is indicative that content does, in fact, loose value over time.
If we look at a logical extreme of Singleton's argument, we would all be paying ourselves royalties every time we use fire. Since the use of fire was "invented" many years ago, we are probably all descended from that inventor. Obviously paying ourselves a royalty is an absurdity, but in the long term that appears to be one of the logical flaw's of Singleton's argument.
Amazon provides a valuable service, nevertheless I have been dismayed that they are using "sneaky" tactics to extort money from the consumer. Corporate America, unfortunately, has become addicted to marketing. It is no longer simply about selling you a product, but using every sneaky trick to sell (upgrade) you to the next product. As an aside, I totally hate it when a google search comes back with totally ridicules "offers" for non-existent products.
I totally avoid "free" trials, but reading the fine print on how to avoid these come-ons really causes one to have a miserable shopping experience. Theoretically Amazon would want its customers to have a pleasant experience, but I guess there are enough morons out there who fall for these offers thereby making these unethical business practices profitable. Too bad.
Algorithms, at the fundamental level, are simply narratives written in a computer language to describe a specific operation. Anyone can write an algorithm. In fact it does not even have to be in a computer language, you can write it in English and give it to a programmer for coding. Simply describing a physical process in narrative form should NOT patentable.
I posted the following on the TLF website: While this decision is a step in the right direction, I still believe that we haven't gotten down to the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that concepts cannot be patented.
What Teleflex could have patented was a device that could read the position of a gas peddle. However, KSR - if it independently developed its own device - would not infringe on Teleflex's patent since the concept and design of using remote sensing has been around for a long long time. For KSR to infringe, they would have had to have used the design drawings of Teleflex.
Unfortunately, advertising has become the "drug" of choice for addicted companies. If advertising doesn't work because the customer are numbed out by information overload, the corporate solution is ever more marketing. (sorry about the analogy anonymous coward - many more to come!!!).
I just bought a new DVD burner to replace one that broke. The "free" software that came with it has the come-ons to upgrade.
My M$ Access 2000 project took a dump. The computer asked to report the error, so I let it. The next screen said that M$ was no longer updating the software, so why report the error? Further down, the "solution" was to upgrade. So even the "error" reporting program is nothing more than a vehicle for pushing more sales.
Another negative aspect of DRM, that I overlooked in my analogy; an expiration date. DRM allows the content producer to "vaporize" content at their will; obviously not a benefit to the consumer.
On the issue of a subscription service as being a "good" use of DRM, wrong. Subscription services can be done by logging in and paying a monthly fee or a unit fee based on the quantity of songs downloaded. There is no reason for DRM.
I have developed an analogy on the evils of DRM. As most everyone knows DRM does not enable anything, it deprives the user of being able to freely use their content.
Imagine a gallon of milk, it costs $4.00. The gallon of milk represents the body of rights a content user has, the right to change formats, the right to mix/match, the right to time shift, etc. Each of these rights is analogous to a pint.
DRM allows the content sellers to stop selling the milk by the gallon and only sell the milk by the pint at $1.50 a pint.
The content sellers claim that that by dividing one big right into four smaller rights that they are creating value and flexibility for the consumer. Hogwash.
They also claims that this al-carte service will save the consumer money. In fact the consumer, under this scenario, would pay $6.00 for the gallon of milk instead of $4.00. Hardly an economic benefit to the consumer.
Justaaguy: The "problem" is not an out of control bureaucracy. The patent office is spineless. It is simply doing the bidding of the corporations. The real problem is that corporations are in a feeding frenzy of extorting property rights on any concept they can dream-up.
The current issue of Forbes (5/7/2007) has a good article titled "Patent Pirates". Forbes writes "Hedge funds and institutional investors are financing the latest wave of IP lawsuits." ... "DeepNines is a tiny Dallas software maker that protects corporate computer networks from hackers and other threats. But in August it became an attacker, filing a lawsuit against McAfee (nyse: MFE - news - people ). The suit alleges that the security-software giant infringed on a DeepNines patent, one that combines an intrusion detection and prevention system with a firewall, in a single device. McAfee denies the charge, saying the patent relies on previously known technology, and is gearing up for a long and costly fight."
When Microsoft introduces a new version of its operating system, they should issue a final version of the "old" operating system. This subject seems to be overlooked by us when discussing the issue of whether to migrate to the new operating system. I believe that Microsoft should make final versions of all their "discontinued' programs available.
For example, I have an old computer that only can run Windows98, I was able to get the program "current" by downloading from Microsoft's website, nevertheless having a final CD would have been much easier. Also Microsoft may not keep the website operating forever.
Just recently my Access2000 program crashed. The computer dutifully asked to report the error, I let it do that. On the next screen, I was informed that 1. the bugs to access were no longer being fixed and 2. My solution was to upgrade As many people have pointed out upgrading from XP to Vista may not resolve old issues and may introduce new problems.
If the content providers can claim that we owe them fees every time we use their so-called "intellectual property", how about their use of our personnel information????
I think that they should pay us a royalty every time our personal information is bought and sold!!!!! The reason this personal information has intellectual property value is that the purchasers of this private information hope to extort money out of us. So why not have a toll booth for access to this information?
My real hope of course is not getting paid, but eliminating draconian restrictions by the content industry on the consumer.
On the post: Singing The Same Song: 1962 Article Demands Stricter Copyright To Stop Jukebox Loophole
On the post: Connecticut AG Sues Best Buy Over Phony Version Of Company Website
And You Wonder Why Consumers Have Little Respect F
If corporations expect honesty from their customers, they need to set a good example. PS: We can hope.
On the post: Who Are The Losers In SEC's SarbOx Rule Change?
On the post: Courts Notice That CAN SPAM Isn't Supposed To Be A Tool For Individuals
Marketing is also the "drug" of choice. As with any addict, as the (marketing) drug wears off, the solution is ever more drug. Meanwhile, the vast majority consumers are numbed out and pissed-off. Too bad that - through the "law-of-large-numbers" - there are apparently enough suckers to make spam profitable.
On the post: Google Wants To Auction Spectrum Now, Too
Re: Re: Spectrum cannot be sold
On the post: Google Wants To Auction Spectrum Now, Too
Spectrum cannot be sold
Big mistake. I have no problem with the FCC leasing spectrum. However, the spectrum is a public resource. If spectrum is actually sold we would end up with a private FCC that would have the look and feel of the RIAA and the MPAA. Do we really need another private entity that has no regards for consumer rights?
In theory the FCC manages the spectrum for the public good. If privatized we would have all sorts of slippery slope arguments over who owns what and what one can do. This would be a nightmare.
On the post: Arguing For Infinite Copyright... Using Copied Ideas And A Near Total Misunderstanding Of Property
Re: Nonsensical - Bad Analogies
When a copyright or patent expires it goes into the public domain where anyone has the freedom to benefit by it. The state is not seizing anything.
"that your proprietary use" of the property had expired?"
There are many types of property. Land is one of those types of property that has a long life. However, other forms of property such as cars and computers have a short life. In fact their value tends to depreciate as newer and better cars and computers are introduced. In the end the monetary value of old cars and computers can actually be negative since you have to pay the garbage guy to pick the junk up and haul it away.
I would advocate that the "value" of copyrighted material is also subject to economic factors such as depreciation (not in the physical sense) and competition. What has value today for the consumer may be valueless tomorrow. An author may believe his work is worth $1 Million. However, if no consumer is willing to pay, it sits on the shelf and benefits no one.
On the post: Arguing For Infinite Copyright... Using Copied Ideas And A Near Total Misunderstanding Of Property
Re: Another argument -Rewarding Publishers
Promoting the progress of science and the arts means that copyright must only be for a limited period of time. We live in a free market system were the producers must produce to make money, not a royalty (welfare) system that obstructs future innovation through legal gymnastics.
If you can't recover your "investment" by the time the copyright expires, too bad. You simply made an incorrect business decision. Time to move on.
On the post: Arguing For Infinite Copyright... Using Copied Ideas And A Near Total Misunderstanding Of Property
Re: Andy: Too simplistic an arguement
Other shortcomings include: 1) the concept that content producers need "protection" or they won't produce. Many people produce content based simply on personnel desire, 2) content producers seem to believe that content has some sort of intrinsic value. This is hogwash, content only has value if a demand exists for that content.
On the post: Arguing For Infinite Copyright... Using Copied Ideas And A Near Total Misunderstanding Of Property
What was distressing with the new "copyright alliance" is their red herring of "protecting" copyright by making it "stronger". What they do not say is that the are aggrandizing the rights of the content holder by stealing the existing rights of the content users.
On the post: If Resources Aren't Scarce, Why Do You Need A Market?
Furthermore, in terms of economics, the royalty (welfare) paid to the content provider becomes a perpetual tax on the product, it artificially increases the cost of the product that the consumer is buying.
Lets look at this from a slightly different angle. If you buy an asset like a car, the value of that asset depreciates over time. At a certain point it becomes "worthless". The content industry does not seem to accept this fact that their content can become worthless. The DVD clearance bin at Wallmart is indicative that content does, in fact, loose value over time.
If we look at a logical extreme of Singleton's argument, we would all be paying ourselves royalties every time we use fire. Since the use of fire was "invented" many years ago, we are probably all descended from that inventor. Obviously paying ourselves a royalty is an absurdity, but in the long term that appears to be one of the logical flaw's of Singleton's argument.
On the post: Attention Amazon.com: You Have A Bunch Of Pissed Off Customers... And Some Are Blaming Techdirt
I totally avoid "free" trials, but reading the fine print on how to avoid these come-ons really causes one to have a miserable shopping experience. Theoretically Amazon would want its customers to have a pleasant experience, but I guess there are enough morons out there who fall for these offers thereby making these unethical business practices profitable. Too bad.
On the post: Supreme Court Makes Two Good Decisions On Patent Law
Re: Re: Richard Ahlquist
On the post: Supreme Court Makes Two Good Decisions On Patent Law
What Teleflex could have patented was a device that could read the position of a gas peddle. However, KSR - if it independently developed its own device - would not infringe on Teleflex's patent since the concept and design of using remote sensing has been around for a long long time. For KSR to infringe, they would have had to have used the design drawings of Teleflex.
On the post: Windows Genuine Advantage... Or Windows Genuine Advertisements?
I just bought a new DVD burner to replace one that broke. The "free" software that came with it has the come-ons to upgrade.
My M$ Access 2000 project took a dump. The computer asked to report the error, so I let it. The next screen said that M$ was no longer updating the software, so why report the error? Further down, the "solution" was to upgrade. So even the "error" reporting program is nothing more than a vehicle for pushing more sales.
On the post: Repeating The Claim That DRM Enables Things Won't Make It True
On the issue of a subscription service as being a "good" use of DRM, wrong. Subscription services can be done by logging in and paying a monthly fee or a unit fee based on the quantity of songs downloaded. There is no reason for DRM.
On the post: Repeating The Claim That DRM Enables Things Won't Make It True
Imagine a gallon of milk, it costs $4.00. The gallon of milk represents the body of rights a content user has, the right to change formats, the right to mix/match, the right to time shift, etc. Each of these rights is analogous to a pint.
DRM allows the content sellers to stop selling the milk by the gallon and only sell the milk by the pint at $1.50 a pint.
The content sellers claim that that by dividing one big right into four smaller rights that they are creating value and flexibility for the consumer. Hogwash.
They also claims that this al-carte service will save the consumer money. In fact the consumer, under this scenario, would pay $6.00 for the gallon of milk instead of $4.00. Hardly an economic benefit to the consumer.
On the post: Another Day, Another Set Of Prior Art Discovered Against Verizon's VoIP Patents
The current issue of Forbes (5/7/2007) has a good article titled "Patent Pirates". Forbes writes "Hedge funds and institutional investors are financing the latest wave of IP lawsuits." ... "DeepNines is a tiny Dallas software maker that protects corporate computer networks from hackers and other threats. But in August it became an attacker, filing a lawsuit against McAfee (nyse: MFE - news - people ). The suit alleges that the security-software giant infringed on a DeepNines patent, one that combines an intrusion detection and prevention system with a firewall, in a single device. McAfee denies the charge, saying the patent relies on previously known technology, and is gearing up for a long and costly fight."
On the post: Dell Bringing Back Windows XP For An Encore
For example, I have an old computer that only can run Windows98, I was able to get the program "current" by downloading from Microsoft's website, nevertheless having a final CD would have been much easier. Also Microsoft may not keep the website operating forever.
Just recently my Access2000 program crashed. The computer dutifully asked to report the error, I let it do that. On the next screen, I was informed that 1. the bugs to access were no longer being fixed and 2. My solution was to upgrade As many people have pointed out upgrading from XP to Vista may not resolve old issues and may introduce new problems.
On the post: ISPs On Selling Your Clickstream Data: No Comment
I think that they should pay us a royalty every time our personal information is bought and sold!!!!! The reason this personal information has intellectual property value is that the purchasers of this private information hope to extort money out of us. So why not have a toll booth for access to this information?
My real hope of course is not getting paid, but eliminating draconian restrictions by the content industry on the consumer.
Next >>