Perhaps they could charge for unsuccessful appeals. Require an upfront deposit of $1500. If the appeal is successful, that amount gets credited against the account. If unsuccessful, the money is forfeit to Google to pay the costs of investigating and adjudicating the appeal. Some amount would also go into Google's legal defense fund to pay for contributory infringment suits brought by people unhappy with the process, a few of which appear to be filed every year.
You have two choices when you redact a document. Redact what you think may require redaction (over-inclusive,) or redact what you are certain does require redaction (under-inclusive). The difficulty of retroactive redaction ensures that one will always adopt the overinclusive approach.
Mechanically, what happens is that a lower level employee reviews the document and redacts anything they see that may possibly be problematic based on instructions from the person directing production. Then a higher-level decision maker goes through and adds any redactions they see fit. It would be unusual for them to remove any of their subordinate's redactions. Sometimes, the logic of one person or the other may be screwy. To extrapolate from what may have been an ill-informed choice to a plan or policy of intrusion into the data privacy of civilians is the bad kind of armchair psychology at best, and paranoid conspiracy theorism at worst.
Not that those are necessarily bad things - the cynic in me says that paranoid conspiracy theories are right more often than many people think.
To be sure, the Internet has become a free place to speak. Reasonable minds can quibble over the degree of its importance and value, but it is obviously both important and valuable. It is a bit of a stretch to go from that to malease over private control: newspapers, which were inarguably the great engines of expression not so very long ago (even I remember those days, and I don't remember much,) were and are privately owned. Somehow, expression survived without government-imposed control or regulation. But assume we make the stretch. McSlarrow's point is still valid: constitutions do not exist for the times when it is convenient for government to go along with the whims of private entities. Constitutions exist to limit government precisely when it is most inconvenient to do so, when there would be a legitimate social benefit to permitting government to do the thing the Constitution prohibits.
If there is a need for an ISP unadultered by favoritism and throttling, that need will be met in a truly free market. The problem is not with private control. It is with government sticking its thumb on the scales whenever consumers try to way the benefits of different private controllers. As Ima Fish points out, ISPs as now incarnated exist largely on public largesse. Get rid of that, and competition will increase.
The concept of net neutrality is that a cable company should not be able to edit the content its users see. It should be content-neutral. But it may not want to be content-neutral: in fact, it may very much want to use its privileged position as gatekeeper to ensure that its customers are delivered messages it wants them to see, and not delivered messages it does not want them to see. The right to be free from a government-imposed viewpoint, including the viewpoint of content-neutrality, is precisely what the First Amendment has been interpreted to protect.
The point is even more clear when one considers McSlarrow's actual point, which is that it is an amazing hypocrisy for net neutrality advocates to argue that the reason for it is the First Amendment right of consumers to consume the messages the want. McSlarrow's point was that that is _not_ what the First Amendment provides. It does not say that there will be no censorship, only that there will be no _government_ censorship. Private (cable) company censorship is certainly not implicated by the First Amendment, except that the First Amendment means that the government cannot regulate such censorship. Which is what net neutrality seeks to do.
The real problem with McSlarrow's argument isn't that he is wrong (he isn't,) but that cable companies enjoy a government-mandated monopoly that comes with strings. One of the strings is government control of content. Although this is arguably unconstitutional, I am certain that McSlarrow would not be thrilled with the alternative - complete deregulation.
When you have a good search model, you need to figure out its place in the market. That may require _you_ to identify its place in Google's ecosystem, and then persuade Google of its value to them (ie - selling out is still selling).
If you don't think you can make money by selling it to Google, then you will have to find another way to make money. You are absolutely right that Google's hardfought market position will not be yours overnight, just because you came up with a new search model. (Should it?!) So you will have to find a way to make your money on your search in a way that does not depend on Google-supremacy. Instead of selling eyes and search result placement, maybe your new twist will allow you to sell something else. In other words, what is needed isn't a government mandate or a socially-enforced monopoly. It is innovation.
there to be less lawsuits like this in the world. Santa hasn't heard me for the last 20 years, though.
One of the ways plaintiffs' counsel extort companies is by filing immensely vague complaints with no obvious theory or facts. Until recently, the standard in federal court (and still the standard in most state courts) is that the complaint need only state facts consistent with an actionable theory - so the fact that the complaint says little is not a problem, so long as what it does say is consistent. While the defense struggles to figure out what the @#$%@% the complaint is supposed to mean, it still has to spend money defending itself. Meanwhile, the plaintiff is getting discovery, groping around for any evidence of any wrongdoing. Whether or not it finds any, it is still cheaper to settle than to go to trial and risk a crazy verdict.
The rule against this practice does not get enforced. Consequently, we see lawyers willing to file vague or even ludicrous lawsuits.
My German is rusty, and was never very good. But it is customary for lawyers to advise potential adversaries that their clients are prepared to sue, anticipate doing so, and anticipate that there will be costs associated with doing so that will be born by the other side. It is typical to also state that they would be willing to settle for the costs of such a suit and a cessation of the objectionable conduct. That is decidedly different from saying "we have already incurred $x in attorney fees that you will have to pay if we go to court."
I can't tell which of these is going on, here. If the former, then the blog post was probably libelous. If the latter, then the C&D compounds the problem.
Well said. Copyright is stupid, but it is the law. The law prescribes a stupid enforcement mechanism. It is not wrong for individuals to try to utilize the stupid enforcement mechanism. After all, it is the only one they've got.
If a reporter were to write an original article in which they disclosed that sources had revealed Yahoo!'s pricing, and it was $x for y service, presumably Yahoo! would not take issue.
Content is scarce. Copies of "Bad Boys 2" (or, apparently, "Zombieland") are not scarce. But there is a limited number of different content options.
Unlike air or water, content options are not interchangeable. I can drink a glass of water and be satisfied. I can drink a different glass of water and be just as satisfied. Movies don't work that way - I can watch "Bottle Shock" and be satisfied, but watching "Ishtar" is unlikely to do the same thing.
It is an over-simplification to say that there is no content scarcity. In the past, content creators were able to monetize that scarcity by commoditizing copies of the scarce content. That won't work anymore. The reason it won't work is because that is not a sale of content, but a sale of distribution. And distribution is now free (or close enough, and in any event not in the control of the studios). So good companies will find a new way to make money from the _content_, rather than the distribution, or they will eventually die.
Incidentally, "Lotssss of T-shirts" is only one way to do that, and may not be the most effective way.
You may find it difficult to exercise your right. For instance, if your patent is stupid and should not have been granted, or if it has little value, you may not be able to find a lawyer willing to take your case on a contingency-fee basis. Then you would have to hire a lawyer with your own money, and the cost of litigation may outweigh its value pretty quickly (again, we're taking it for granted that your patent is low-value or worthless).
But you have the right, and litigation is expensive... so as a practical matter, other small operators will be unlikely to want to infringe your patent. Now the big guys - they are probably aware of the quality of your patent, and believe they will eventually win a lawsuit. Their cost/benefit analysis is very different from the small operator's. Put differently, the value of your exclusive right is that it is enforceable against other micro-entities.
Incidentally, if your patent is valuable and the infringement significantly impairs that value, you should have no trouble getting a lawyer to protect it. The largest single-plaintiff verdicts are for patent infringement. The rules for collecting a contingency fee from a single plaintiff are much friendlier than the rules for collecting from a class of plaintiffs. So lawyers who think they can win have strong incentives to represent patent-holders. This is the genesis for myriad stupid lawsuits.
The delays are not too bad. And the thorough regression testing that should be performed during those delays is much appreciated. Moreover, it is good for Apple - it preserves the quality of its brand, and avoids having to set up an infrastructure for evaluating and providing refunds for crappy apps (since there is no workable preview).
The trouble is that the delays do not serve their designed purpose. Crappy apps still arrive - I own several that crash regularly or just suck. The Facebook app as originally installed would not allow me to post status updates. WTH good is that?!
If Apple's control actually led to promised quality, it would be a good model. Not of "software publisher," but as "software editor and distributor" - a useful service. The trouble is that Apple isn't doing its editorial job.
I think you "make sure they default" by picking a defendant that will default, not by screwing up service of process (incidentally, no subpoena is involved). So you choose a fictitious entity, or a friendly one, or an unrelated one.
That's silly - orders against unknown parties are enforced every day.
In order to file something against a John Doe defendant, the plaintiff generally must aver that the identity of the John Doe defendant is not known and cannot be ascertained. If that averment is false, the signing attorney is subject to Rule 11 sanctions.
But the article didn't mention John Doe defendants. It mentioned "phantom authors". I don't know what that means.
Incidentally, a default judgment is just a judgment. It is exactly as enforceable against a third-party as any other judgment. So you can run this just by suing someone who won't dispute the charge. The problem is not the default, it is the overbroad order on final judgment.
As to Netscape - agreed. Netscape's browser share died because its browser was bloated and sucked. IE was better. Now IE is bloated and sucks, but processors are so fast we hardly notice. MS has outstanding timing.
As to Google suing... that is more than a little misleading. Google has been involved in a number of lawsuits, but has only initiated a few. The ones it started are, for the most part, not IP suits. For instance, Google sued MS for antitrust. The exception I know of is the 2005 suit against Froogles (first hit if you google "google sues," as you suggested). Given that Google had a product out called "Froogle" at the time, the lawsuit was probably well-advised (unlike most of the craptastic IP litigation out there from companies that think a lawsuit is their ticket to paradise).
This is going just a bit too far. Before Google there was AltaVista, and before AltaVista there was Yahoo. Before that, the Internet was pretty well organized, although the World Wide Web was a bit of a no-man's land. Google does it differently, probably better, but it was not the first to "cut through the noise and ma[ke] [the Internet] navigable."
Not that angry dude is making any sense, but this isn't why he's crazy.
Not IP, but closely related areas. And you'll be shocked to learn that they are as stupid as IP. For instance, there was once a television ad in which a robot in a fancy dress turned the letters on a gameshow that looked like Wheel of Fortune. Vanna White sued, and won, on the remarkable theory that the robot had misappropriated her likeness for commercial gain.
What it comes down to is that celebs (and increasingly, just anyone) may have a property right in their likeness, however defined. So impersonators have to tread a bit of a line - as will this technology.
"material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."
It speaks not of "physical representations" but of "material objects in which sounds ... are fixed". Thus, a _hard disk_ is a copy if sounds can be perceived or communicated from it by some means. The collection of bits that is the file, floating around through the tubes, is not a material object.
Incidentally, the argument Mike references fails because it just grows copies. So the "copy" becomes, say, the collective RAM of 25 routers and switches. But it is still a copy. The problem is that courts have interpreted "fixed" _really_ loosely to include any fixation for any amount of time, even if transient. Of course, nowhere else in law or common sense does "fixed" include momentary, intentionally transient positions. If Shaq is running and Ming runs into him charging down the lane, it is not charging because Shaq's location is not fixed.
Yes, but the copyright does not extend to "portions of the original fixation," only to the _original elements_ of such portions. If your filter is sufficiently sophisticated as to eliminate the originality from the recording, leaving only the actual sound that was recorded, the question is somewhat closer.
On the post: Openness? Transparency? Not When Biden Gets To Hang With Entertainment Industry Lobbyists: Press Kicked Out
Remember when Cheney did this?
On the post: Is Google Going Too Far In Latest Advertising Bans?
Re: Interesting Conundrum
On the post: Careful What You Redact: It May Say More Than What You Left In
This is paranoia
Mechanically, what happens is that a lower level employee reviews the document and redacts anything they see that may possibly be problematic based on instructions from the person directing production. Then a higher-level decision maker goes through and adds any redactions they see fit. It would be unusual for them to remove any of their subordinate's redactions. Sometimes, the logic of one person or the other may be screwy. To extrapolate from what may have been an ill-informed choice to a plan or policy of intrusion into the data privacy of civilians is the bad kind of armchair psychology at best, and paranoid conspiracy theorism at worst.
Not that those are necessarily bad things - the cynic in me says that paranoid conspiracy theories are right more often than many people think.
On the post: Cable Lobbyist Says Net Neutrality Violates The First Amendment
Re: Re: Wait.. .no, this makes sense
If there is a need for an ISP unadultered by favoritism and throttling, that need will be met in a truly free market. The problem is not with private control. It is with government sticking its thumb on the scales whenever consumers try to way the benefits of different private controllers. As Ima Fish points out, ISPs as now incarnated exist largely on public largesse. Get rid of that, and competition will increase.
On the post: Cable Lobbyist Says Net Neutrality Violates The First Amendment
Wait.. .no, this makes sense
The point is even more clear when one considers McSlarrow's actual point, which is that it is an amazing hypocrisy for net neutrality advocates to argue that the reason for it is the First Amendment right of consumers to consume the messages the want. McSlarrow's point was that that is _not_ what the First Amendment provides. It does not say that there will be no censorship, only that there will be no _government_ censorship. Private (cable) company censorship is certainly not implicated by the First Amendment, except that the First Amendment means that the government cannot regulate such censorship. Which is what net neutrality seeks to do.
The real problem with McSlarrow's argument isn't that he is wrong (he isn't,) but that cable companies enjoy a government-mandated monopoly that comes with strings. One of the strings is government control of content. Although this is arguably unconstitutional, I am certain that McSlarrow would not be thrilled with the alternative - complete deregulation.
On the post: Dilbert Explains Why Just Copying Others Is A Dumb Business Model
Re: Speed to market is only 1 consideration
If you don't think you can make money by selling it to Google, then you will have to find another way to make money. You are absolutely right that Google's hardfought market position will not be yours overnight, just because you came up with a new search model. (Should it?!) So you will have to find a way to make your money on your search in a way that does not depend on Google-supremacy. Instead of selling eyes and search result placement, maybe your new twist will allow you to sell something else. In other words, what is needed isn't a government mandate or a socially-enforced monopoly. It is innovation.
On the post: Google And Microsoft Sued For Linking, Indirectly, To Infringing Music
For Christmas, I want
One of the ways plaintiffs' counsel extort companies is by filing immensely vague complaints with no obvious theory or facts. Until recently, the standard in federal court (and still the standard in most state courts) is that the complaint need only state facts consistent with an actionable theory - so the fact that the complaint says little is not a problem, so long as what it does say is consistent. While the defense struggles to figure out what the @#$%@% the complaint is supposed to mean, it still has to spend money defending itself. Meanwhile, the plaintiff is getting discovery, groping around for any evidence of any wrongdoing. Whether or not it finds any, it is still cheaper to settle than to go to trial and risk a crazy verdict.
The rule against this practice does not get enforced. Consequently, we see lawyers willing to file vague or even ludicrous lawsuits.
On the post: P2P Pre-Settlement Letters In Germany May Have Been Illegal; Lawyer Who Reveals This Threatened With Lawsuit
Hrm...
I can't tell which of these is going on, here. If the former, then the blog post was probably libelous. If the latter, then the C&D compounds the problem.
On the post: Yahoo Doesn't Want You To Know Its Spying Price List; Issues DMCA Takedown
Re: So, what is the "correct" procedure?
If a reporter were to write an original article in which they disclosed that sources had revealed Yahoo!'s pricing, and it was $x for y service, presumably Yahoo! would not take issue.
On the post: One Misguided Tweet Is 'Indisputable' Evidence That Piracy Harms Movies?
Re:
Unlike air or water, content options are not interchangeable. I can drink a glass of water and be satisfied. I can drink a different glass of water and be just as satisfied. Movies don't work that way - I can watch "Bottle Shock" and be satisfied, but watching "Ishtar" is unlikely to do the same thing.
It is an over-simplification to say that there is no content scarcity. In the past, content creators were able to monetize that scarcity by commoditizing copies of the scarce content. That won't work anymore. The reason it won't work is because that is not a sale of content, but a sale of distribution. And distribution is now free (or close enough, and in any event not in the control of the studios). So good companies will find a new way to make money from the _content_, rather than the distribution, or they will eventually die.
Incidentally, "Lotssss of T-shirts" is only one way to do that, and may not be the most effective way.
On the post: ABA Journal's Patent Application To Score Interview With USPTO Boss David Kappos
Re: Re: Not much
You may find it difficult to exercise your right. For instance, if your patent is stupid and should not have been granted, or if it has little value, you may not be able to find a lawyer willing to take your case on a contingency-fee basis. Then you would have to hire a lawyer with your own money, and the cost of litigation may outweigh its value pretty quickly (again, we're taking it for granted that your patent is low-value or worthless).
But you have the right, and litigation is expensive... so as a practical matter, other small operators will be unlikely to want to infringe your patent. Now the big guys - they are probably aware of the quality of your patent, and believe they will eventually win a lawsuit. Their cost/benefit analysis is very different from the small operator's. Put differently, the value of your exclusive right is that it is enforceable against other micro-entities.
Incidentally, if your patent is valuable and the infringement significantly impairs that value, you should have no trouble getting a lawyer to protect it. The largest single-plaintiff verdicts are for patent infringement. The rules for collecting a contingency fee from a single plaintiff are much friendlier than the rules for collecting from a class of plaintiffs. So lawyers who think they can win have strong incentives to represent patent-holders. This is the genesis for myriad stupid lawsuits.
On the post: iPhone App Developer Backlash Growing
Eh.
The trouble is that the delays do not serve their designed purpose. Crappy apps still arrive - I own several that crash regularly or just suck. The Facebook app as originally installed would not allow me to post status updates. WTH good is that?!
If Apple's control actually led to promised quality, it would be a good model. Not of "software publisher," but as "software editor and distributor" - a useful service. The trouble is that Apple isn't doing its editorial job.
On the post: Sneaky Way To Get Past Section 230 Safe Harbors To Force Content Offline
Re: Re: re: I don't get it;
This is, of course, already illegal.
On the post: Sneaky Way To Get Past Section 230 Safe Harbors To Force Content Offline
Re: Re: Re: I don't get it;
In order to file something against a John Doe defendant, the plaintiff generally must aver that the identity of the John Doe defendant is not known and cannot be ascertained. If that averment is false, the signing attorney is subject to Rule 11 sanctions.
But the article didn't mention John Doe defendants. It mentioned "phantom authors". I don't know what that means.
Incidentally, a default judgment is just a judgment. It is exactly as enforceable against a third-party as any other judgment. So you can run this just by suing someone who won't dispute the charge. The problem is not the default, it is the overbroad order on final judgment.
On the post: Google Doesn't Rely On Intellectual Property For Its Leadership Position
Re: Google sues for IP a lot...
As to Google suing... that is more than a little misleading. Google has been involved in a number of lawsuits, but has only initiated a few. The ones it started are, for the most part, not IP suits. For instance, Google sued MS for antitrust. The exception I know of is the 2005 suit against Froogles (first hit if you google "google sues," as you suggested). Given that Google had a product out called "Froogle" at the time, the lawsuit was probably well-advised (unlike most of the craptastic IP litigation out there from companies that think a lawsuit is their ticket to paradise).
On the post: Google Doesn't Rely On Intellectual Property For Its Leadership Position
Re: Re:
Not that angry dude is making any sense, but this isn't why he's crazy.
On the post: What If You Could Recreate Live Performances By Dead Artists On A Computer?
Re: Riddle me this, Batman...
What it comes down to is that celebs (and increasingly, just anyone) may have a property right in their likeness, however defined. So impersonators have to tread a bit of a line - as will this technology.
On the post: Copyright And Education In Conflict?
On the post: Does Bluebeat Actually Have A Legal Basis For Its Claim Of Copyright Over Beatles' Songs?
Re: Copies
"material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."
It speaks not of "physical representations" but of "material objects in which sounds ... are fixed". Thus, a _hard disk_ is a copy if sounds can be perceived or communicated from it by some means. The collection of bits that is the file, floating around through the tubes, is not a material object.
Incidentally, the argument Mike references fails because it just grows copies. So the "copy" becomes, say, the collective RAM of 25 routers and switches. But it is still a copy. The problem is that courts have interpreted "fixed" _really_ loosely to include any fixation for any amount of time, even if transient. Of course, nowhere else in law or common sense does "fixed" include momentary, intentionally transient positions. If Shaq is running and Ming runs into him charging down the lane, it is not charging because Shaq's location is not fixed.
On the post: Does Bluebeat Actually Have A Legal Basis For Its Claim Of Copyright Over Beatles' Songs?
Re: 114(b) pertains to cover songs
Next >>