Regretfully, one of the things "wrong" with our country, that results in a lot of no-action babble is: "For one thing, there's no good definition of spyware, nor is it clear what aspect of it is illegal. " To borrow a pet phrase "Analysis Paralysis".
I think that there are several clear tests that can be imposed that would serve as clear proof that something is spyware or other forms of garbage. My comments actually go beyond spyware itself. One is the requirement that all programs that phone home inform/allow the user to control its operation. Eliminate the requirement that the user must opt-out, instead offer the user the opportunity to opt-in, marketers do NOT have a right to send you anything. Require that the user have the ability to easly remove any program.
To a degree we don't have to "define" what is or is not spyware or other type of offensive program. All we need to do is define certain rights for the computer owner. If those rights are violated the assets of the offender are seized.
It is unfortunate the the delay mantra is not actively being refuted in the public forums. Think of it this way, had the HD content crowd foregone "copy protection" they could have been selling HD content at least eight years ago!!!! The HD content providers could have been making money now for over eight years. It's their fault that they aren't.
The delay in introducing HD content was caused by the egos of the HD content crowd bickering amongst themselves over how to introduce copy protection. They caused the delay themselves but try to make it appear that this was simply a "technical hurdle" that had to be overcome. The fact that a lot of off-the-shelf hardware could play HD content (as is) was irrelevant to them.
To me the spectrum debate has unfortunately been one-sided where the spectrum privatization crowd has done all the whining.
First, the privatization crowd claims that "private" ownership will allow the for the efficient use of the spectrum. While this may appear appealing on the surface it is a disingenuous argument. The spectrum is already in "private" ownership. The government is holding the spectrum in trust for the American people. Next, who has given the privatization crowd the right to expropriate public property??? If the shoe where on the other foot, the privatization crowd would be screaming how their private property was being illegally seized by the government. Additionally, for a group that detests socialism I find their arguments to be very socialistic. By analogy, many people are able to afford a single home on a large lot. This is hardly efficient as maybe three or four families could live on that lot. The same is true with the radio spectrum. The privatization crowd thinks it has a right to expropriate and allocate private property!!!! Seems very Jacobian of them.
Second, one of the idiotic mantras is that privatization is needed to solve the interoperability problem with emergency radio service. The problem is a management problem that the emergency service crowd needs to resolve, this is NOT a radio spectrum issue. I fail to see how allowing a private company would magically solve this issue. Look at the fact that private companies when it comes to telecommunications like to lock out their competitors. There was in a recent post that some companies would not allow calls to go to certain phone numbers. Now, all of a sudden, they are expected provide an open standard for emergency service communication? I don't think so. Additionally, why should the emergency service crowd pay a private company to use radio spectrum that they can already use for free? Please note that the emergency service crowd already provides private companies with income through the purchase of equipment and the use of consultants to set-up their systems. All the privatization crowd wants is another toll-booth to extort more money from the public.
I am glad that some sanity has prevailed for a change by the UK Appeals Court tossing out the lawsuit.
However, we are overlooking a new attempt to aggrandize the scope of copyright to further chill innovation. The New York Times article wrote: "Baigent and Leigh ''expended a vast amount of skill and labor'' on their book, their lawyers said. ''That skill and labor is protectable.''". So what this apparently means is that if one spends time doing research and then someone else uses the facts of that research, you now owe them for the time and effort of them doing that research!!!!! No college student would ever be able to do research again.
I can only hope that these absurd attempts to aggrandize copyright/patents will be squelched by court sanity.
Those who claim that we should not have regulation guaranteeing network neutrality say that this cannot happen when companies are provided freedom from regulation so they can serve the customer. I guess the fact that this freedom has been abused to pursue underhanded business practices is a figment of my imagination.
Those who claim that we should not have regulation guaranteeing network neutrality say that this cannot happen when companies are provided freedom from regulation so they can serve the customer. I guess the fact that this freedom has been abused to pursue underhanded business practices is a figment of my imagination.
The assertion that patent protection is necessary to foster innovation is superficial and neglects that many people invent/innovate simply for the intellectual challenge the ability to help society.
The purpose of the patent system is to provide a patent holder with a LIMITED (in time) monopoly. What is unfortunately happening is that the intellectual property crowd is expanding the concept of patents to apply to abstract concepts such as ideas and business models. Additionally, they are attempting to do away with reverse engineering; a time honored method of developing competing technologies.
I also find it ironic that many people who theoretically advocate free market concepts, instantly do an about face and become monopolists in regards to intellectual property. In the free market you compete or go out of business there is NO right to product protection (Patents are a form of product protection). From the historical perspective, patents have not been around for very long and it seems that we have made significant technological advances even in the absence of patent protection.
I am not against copyright/patent rights provided that they are for a very limited time and are narrowly defined. The current state of patent/copyright law is an absurdity.
I am not a lawyer so what I have to say comes from the lay perspective. It seems to me that many of the discussions concerning the "legality" of marketing/advertising come from the corporate perspective. Company's assert that they have a legal right to get their message out. However, what we are overlooking is the impact of that message on the consumer. The consumer, I believe, has legal right not to be injured or held as a captive audience.
In sending advertising to the consumer the companies are obstructing the ability of the consumer to go about his/her business. I am in the middle of writing a report and an ad pops-up and I have to take time out to eliminate it.
Many of the adware message trespass on your computer and load unauthorized programs. Essential they usurp your private property and turn it into a marketing agent. This is akin to a salesmen believing that he has a right to enter your house without your permission and make a sales pitch at your dinner table while taking the liberty to eat your dinner too.
Three years ago my daughter accidentally hit one of the websites that downloaded a whole bunch of adware, the computer became unusable. It took a couple of days to reinstall the operating system, application programs, and other files. Now, who do I go to get reimbursed for the time and effort it took to fix the computer?????
Finally, if companies do not have the maturity or the ethical standards to be fair to the consumer, then their actions must be constrained through the unpopular action of regulation.
On the post: FTC Wants Time In The Clink For Spyware Distributors
To a degree we don't have to "define" what is or is not spyware or other type of offensive program. All we need to do is define certain rights for the computer owner. If those rights are violated the assets of the offender are seized.
On the post: DVD Jukeboxes Found Legal; DVD Group Whines About How It Will Slow Down High Def DVDs
The delay in introducing HD content was caused by the egos of the HD content crowd bickering amongst themselves over how to introduce copy protection. They caused the delay themselves but try to make it appear that this was simply a "technical hurdle" that had to be overcome. The fact that a lot of off-the-shelf hardware could play HD content (as is) was irrelevant to them.
On the post: Company Says Spectrum Auctions Don't Work, So Just Give It Some Airwaves Instead
First, the privatization crowd claims that "private" ownership will allow the for the efficient use of the spectrum. While this may appear appealing on the surface it is a disingenuous argument. The spectrum is already in "private" ownership. The government is holding the spectrum in trust for the American people. Next, who has given the privatization crowd the right to expropriate public property??? If the shoe where on the other foot, the privatization crowd would be screaming how their private property was being illegally seized by the government. Additionally, for a group that detests socialism I find their arguments to be very socialistic. By analogy, many people are able to afford a single home on a large lot. This is hardly efficient as maybe three or four families could live on that lot. The same is true with the radio spectrum. The privatization crowd thinks it has a right to expropriate and allocate private property!!!! Seems very Jacobian of them.
Second, one of the idiotic mantras is that privatization is needed to solve the interoperability problem with emergency radio service. The problem is a management problem that the emergency service crowd needs to resolve, this is NOT a radio spectrum issue. I fail to see how allowing a private company would magically solve this issue. Look at the fact that private companies when it comes to telecommunications like to lock out their competitors. There was in a recent post that some companies would not allow calls to go to certain phone numbers. Now, all of a sudden, they are expected provide an open standard for emergency service communication? I don't think so. Additionally, why should the emergency service crowd pay a private company to use radio spectrum that they can already use for free? Please note that the emergency service crowd already provides private companies with income through the purchase of equipment and the use of consultants to set-up their systems. All the privatization crowd wants is another toll-booth to extort more money from the public.
On the post: UK Appeals Court Says (Again) Da Vinci Code Is No Copy
However, we are overlooking a new attempt to aggrandize the scope of copyright to further chill innovation. The New York Times article wrote: "Baigent and Leigh ''expended a vast amount of skill and labor'' on their book, their lawyers said. ''That skill and labor is protectable.''". So what this apparently means is that if one spends time doing research and then someone else uses the facts of that research, you now owe them for the time and effort of them doing that research!!!!! No college student would ever be able to do research again.
I can only hope that these absurd attempts to aggrandize copyright/patents will be squelched by court sanity.
On the post: Orwell's Estate Threatens Creator Of Parody Of Parody Of 1984
On the post: FreeConference.com Sues AT&T For Blocked Phone Calls
On the post: FreeConference.com Sues AT&T For Blocked Phone Calls
On the post: The Patent Thicket That May Destroy VoIP
Re: squik
The purpose of the patent system is to provide a patent holder with a LIMITED (in time) monopoly. What is unfortunately happening is that the intellectual property crowd is expanding the concept of patents to apply to abstract concepts such as ideas and business models. Additionally, they are attempting to do away with reverse engineering; a time honored method of developing competing technologies.
I also find it ironic that many people who theoretically advocate free market concepts, instantly do an about face and become monopolists in regards to intellectual property. In the free market you compete or go out of business there is NO right to product protection (Patents are a form of product protection). From the historical perspective, patents have not been around for very long and it seems that we have made significant technological advances even in the absence of patent protection.
I am not against copyright/patent rights provided that they are for a very limited time and are narrowly defined. The current state of patent/copyright law is an absurdity.
On the post: Companies Pay Fines For Advertising In Adware... Still Not Clear How They Broke The Law
A case can be made
In sending advertising to the consumer the companies are obstructing the ability of the consumer to go about his/her business. I am in the middle of writing a report and an ad pops-up and I have to take time out to eliminate it.
Many of the adware message trespass on your computer and load unauthorized programs. Essential they usurp your private property and turn it into a marketing agent. This is akin to a salesmen believing that he has a right to enter your house without your permission and make a sales pitch at your dinner table while taking the liberty to eat your dinner too.
Three years ago my daughter accidentally hit one of the websites that downloaded a whole bunch of adware, the computer became unusable. It took a couple of days to reinstall the operating system, application programs, and other files. Now, who do I go to get reimbursed for the time and effort it took to fix the computer?????
Finally, if companies do not have the maturity or the ethical standards to be fair to the consumer, then their actions must be constrained through the unpopular action of regulation.
Next >>