Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 May 2011 @ 12:53pm
I'm convinced.
Mr Wokasch, you're right. You've convinced me it makes sense in many cases to settle against a patent troll with an obviously bad patent instead of fighting.
So now that we've established that, a much more important conversation is figuring out how to fix this horrible mess that costs innovative companies and benefits the ones that have nothing useful and cannot compete.
Let's toss the patent system altogether. The mounting evidence shows it does much more harm than good. Patents holds back progress, they don't help innovation and instead hinder it, and they reward bad actors. Let's get rid of them completely - no patents at all.
Since you don't seem to have any problem with stating opinions that are "not in [your] best interest" then you should have no objections, right?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 May 2011 @ 12:38pm
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because since the internet was invented all copyright law is now null and void.
While that sounds absurd, in reality that is exactly what has happened.
Copyright laws are effectively unenforceable on the internet. No amount of tweaking to existing copyright laws will change that fact. Ratcheting up draconian penalties will not deter more than a tiny subset of people.
The only way to dent copyright infringement is to completely destroy the usefulness of the internet as a communication platform.
I'm putting my bets on the internet's continued existence. Where are yours?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 May 2011 @ 12:17pm
Re:
1) Find senator's page.
2) Look for link to any 3rd party site.
3) Find exploit for 3rd party site.
4) Replace with pirated content you own.
5) Sue senator.
6) PROFIT!
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 May 2011 @ 8:04am
Pierced Veil
So, now that the corporate veil has been pierced, how long until the CEO of Universal is held personally liable for defrauding artists of their royalties?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 May 2011 @ 12:29pm
Unintended consequences?
I can't believe that someone at Facebook couldn't see some pretty obvious unintended consequences over this, even if it worked the way they wanted it to.
Creating any scare about privacy for Google is going to be just as big an issue for Facebook, if not bigger. Really, what type of data does Google have that Facebook doesn't have? And I can think of quite a bit more personal and private info that the average user has put into Facebook that they wouldn't have shared (knowingly or not) to Google.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 May 2011 @ 7:59am
Parallels
An interesting thought just occurred to me.
All of these various (anti)free trade agreements and IP protection treaties are starting to overlap, and bring many countries into competing and differently framed treaties. These treaties require certain things, such as changes to internal laws, and in a few cases sanctions against "bad actors" (such as one country trying to import cheap generic drugs into another). Now we're seeing a different group of countries looking to start setting up their own treaties.
Go back a hundred years to Europe. How did World War I start? The assassination of some minor nobody was just the trigger (that along with some manipulating by various politicians) to crystallize all the overlapping treaties that bound groups of countries together into declaring war or coming to the defense of another.
Well, you say, those were mutual defense treaties that pledged troops and war, and what we have now are economic treaties. Yes, but economic war has frequently turned into violent war in the past - if a country is being squeezed economically and cannot respond in kind, will they really sit idly by while their people starve or die of disease?
It is not a perfect representation by far, but I think it bears some examination.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 May 2011 @ 1:54pm
Re: Re: Re: Of course it could be cooler
It wasn't pretty.
They gave up and settled before appealing. Things usually don't end up pretty when you settle with someone who is extorting money from you.
Also, that case doesn't apply here. MP3.com was streaming from a single file to anyone who uploaded the hash value. Google is simply giving you your own space and allowing you to stream what you put there.
And while you're at it, look at the details of the book settlement.
I have been, thanks. Google had a very strong fair use case when the publishers first threw their hissy fit. By trying to work with them, the current agreement turned into a monstrosity chock full of anti-competitive features, and that's why its being rejected.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 May 2011 @ 1:29pm
Re: Re: Re: Of course it could be cooler
Ah, found it.
Ok, still different circumstances.
Looks like MP3.com allowed a user to pop a CD into their drive, a program would determine what CD it was (probably some hash value), then allow streaming from a single copy that MP3.com made themselves.
Even all that being said, judge made a bad ruling. MP3.com settled before damages were awarded and did not appeal.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 May 2011 @ 1:06pm
Re: Of course it could be cooler
I really hate waiting in line at the store to pay, but it seems to be what we need to do. The store could be so much cooler if we could just take whatever we want.
Please explain what exactly I'm "taking" when I rip a CD I own and upload those tracks to Google's service where only I have access to them? What am I "taking" when I upload a track I've legally purchased from Amazon's MP3 service?
Google has a habit of assuming that it can just do whatever it wants with the content.
Google is doing nothing with the content here. The user, who already has the content is uploading it. Google is just providing a service that is perfectly legal. If you want to claim it is illegal, please cite specific applicable laws and cases.
It makes me wonder how they think they're different from MP3.com. Didn't that company try the same thing and didn't that company get shot to bits?
Weren't they the Russian company who was selling MP3s for cheap? Vastly different.
Given that the book settlement didn't work out the way they wanted, I wonder what makes them think this will work out.
The book settlement went bad when Google caved in to the ridiculous demands of the publishers. If Google had fought that case, they'd most likely be much better off. Looks like they're learning. Also, again, vastly different case.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 May 2011 @ 10:31am
Re:
Amazingly enough, we actually do spend money to prevent lightning (or at least the damage from it).
They're called lightning rods, and they're a requirement in many building codes for buildings that are at risk (usually those over a certain height).
Also amazingly, they're well worth the money - a proportional response. A building with a high chance of being struck by lightning can mitigate that risk by strapping a piece of metal onto it with a wire trailing to the ground, something which isn't very expensive.
Now let's try to figure out the how expensive and likely a terrorist incident occurring that justifies the expense of DHS and the civil rights violations of having to be fondled by a stranger, irradiated by a machine, and having our children sexually molested.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 May 2011 @ 6:39am
EEE or ...profit?
Two possibilities I see:
Bad: Embrace, Extend, Exterminate. Microsoft made an under-the-table deal with the wireless carriers that they'd acquire Skype and render it useless in the mobile space in exchange for the carriers pushing Windows Phone onto users who want Androids and iPhones.
Good: Microsoft genuinely interested in integrating voice into Windows. (don't laugh, stay with me) Right now, Skype and VoIP through a computer are still small when compared to traditional phones/mobiles. Get enough regular non-internet-savvy users into voice chat using something other than a phone number. Integrate Skype through Messenger, through Windows Phone, and through their business apps like LiveMeeting and Communicator. Microsoft just might have the clout to really challenge the telcos.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 May 2011 @ 1:50pm
Doublespeak
Isn't restricting what my doctor can talk to me about a larger privacy intrusion than the doctor asking me a question of which I don't have to answer if I don't want to?
Isn't stopping a doctor from protecting the safety of a child a larger moral issue than worrying that a doctor might offend a parent's sensibilities?
Where are the government over reach protesters? Where are the 'for the children' politicians?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 May 2011 @ 9:59am
Re: Re: Re:
Guess what it made over 66 million dollar,
So maybe that torrent up on Isohunt was promotional? How is Isohunt to know whether or not the studio put it up themselves?
But I'm more concerned about your comment of cheese on your pretzel bites. Yeuch. Any sane person knows that only salt or various types of mustard goes on pretzels. Save the cheese for nachos.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 May 2011 @ 9:52am
Re:
"First, more Internet space would be available to rogue website operators for new abusive registrations."
Adding a new folder (directory) on my 1 terabyte hard drive does not mean it now holds more than 1 terabyte.
All a domain name is, whether a top level one or not, is a organizational container and a pointer to a resource. They are called URLs - Uniform Resource Locators.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 6:53am
Where's the line?
The idea was to stop companies from firing people for gathering together to stand up for their rights. But should that really extend to situations involving people bitching about their bosses?
So where is the line between complaining about your boss on Facebook and forming a group on Facebook to complaining about management of your employer?
If there is a distinction, its fuzzy enough that the NLRB is justified in taking the stance they did.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 May 2011 @ 11:41am
Re: They should be taxed
but why should they not have to cover the costs of roads.
Strawman. No one is saying they shouldn't be taxed. Mike is saying making hybrid owners pay more because they use less gas is getting the incentives backwards.
There are intelligent ways for lawmakers to make sure that those who drive on the roads pay their fair share for road maintenance. As other commenters have said basing it on vehicle weight or mileage driven makes much more sense.
On the post: Settling Lawsuits Sometimes Makes Sense. Period.
I'm convinced.
So now that we've established that, a much more important conversation is figuring out how to fix this horrible mess that costs innovative companies and benefits the ones that have nothing useful and cannot compete.
Let's toss the patent system altogether. The mounting evidence shows it does much more harm than good. Patents holds back progress, they don't help innovation and instead hinder it, and they reward bad actors. Let's get rid of them completely - no patents at all.
Since you don't seem to have any problem with stating opinions that are "not in [your] best interest" then you should have no objections, right?
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
Re: Re: Re:
While that sounds absurd, in reality that is exactly what has happened.
Copyright laws are effectively unenforceable on the internet. No amount of tweaking to existing copyright laws will change that fact. Ratcheting up draconian penalties will not deter more than a tiny subset of people.
The only way to dent copyright infringement is to completely destroy the usefulness of the internet as a communication platform.
I'm putting my bets on the internet's continued existence. Where are yours?
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
Re:
Using a computer for anything lately is equivalent to 'Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.'
Using P2P apps is just a multiplier for your sentence/fine.
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
Re:
2) Look for link to any 3rd party site.
3) Find exploit for 3rd party site.
4) Replace with pirated content you own.
5) Sue senator.
6) PROFIT!
On the post: Teen Who Used Facebook Images To Rank Looks Of Female Classmates, Arrested For 'Disorderly Conduct'
Re:
I'm perfectly fine with physical altercations being handled by the police... but unless I'm missing something, there were no such in this case.
On the post: Limewire Settles For $105 Million; How Much Of That Will Go To Artists?
Pierced Veil
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110404/12211913771/record-labels-may-owe-artists-cl ose-to-2-billion-lawsuits-ramp-up-with-rick-james-lead.shtml
On the post: Facebook Caught Hiring PR Firm To Smear And Attack Google
Unintended consequences?
Creating any scare about privacy for Google is going to be just as big an issue for Facebook, if not bigger. Really, what type of data does Google have that Facebook doesn't have? And I can think of quite a bit more personal and private info that the average user has put into Facebook that they wouldn't have shared (knowingly or not) to Google.
On the post: Developed Nations Protest Developing Nations' Desire To Create Their Own IP Laws
Parallels
All of these various (anti)free trade agreements and IP protection treaties are starting to overlap, and bring many countries into competing and differently framed treaties. These treaties require certain things, such as changes to internal laws, and in a few cases sanctions against "bad actors" (such as one country trying to import cheap generic drugs into another). Now we're seeing a different group of countries looking to start setting up their own treaties.
Go back a hundred years to Europe. How did World War I start? The assassination of some minor nobody was just the trigger (that along with some manipulating by various politicians) to crystallize all the overlapping treaties that bound groups of countries together into declaring war or coming to the defense of another.
Well, you say, those were mutual defense treaties that pledged troops and war, and what we have now are economic treaties. Yes, but economic war has frequently turned into violent war in the past - if a country is being squeezed economically and cannot respond in kind, will they really sit idly by while their people starve or die of disease?
It is not a perfect representation by far, but I think it bears some examination.
On the post: Google: Major Labels Got In The Way Of Cool Features In Google Music
Re: Re: Re: Of course it could be cooler
They gave up and settled before appealing. Things usually don't end up pretty when you settle with someone who is extorting money from you.
Also, that case doesn't apply here. MP3.com was streaming from a single file to anyone who uploaded the hash value. Google is simply giving you your own space and allowing you to stream what you put there.
And while you're at it, look at the details of the book settlement.
I have been, thanks. Google had a very strong fair use case when the publishers first threw their hissy fit. By trying to work with them, the current agreement turned into a monstrosity chock full of anti-competitive features, and that's why its being rejected.
On the post: Google: Major Labels Got In The Way Of Cool Features In Google Music
Re: Re: Re: Of course it could be cooler
Ok, still different circumstances.
Looks like MP3.com allowed a user to pop a CD into their drive, a program would determine what CD it was (probably some hash value), then allow streaming from a single copy that MP3.com made themselves.
Even all that being said, judge made a bad ruling. MP3.com settled before damages were awarded and did not appeal.
On the post: Google: Major Labels Got In The Way Of Cool Features In Google Music
Re: Of course it could be cooler
Please explain what exactly I'm "taking" when I rip a CD I own and upload those tracks to Google's service where only I have access to them? What am I "taking" when I upload a track I've legally purchased from Amazon's MP3 service?
Google has a habit of assuming that it can just do whatever it wants with the content.
Google is doing nothing with the content here. The user, who already has the content is uploading it. Google is just providing a service that is perfectly legal. If you want to claim it is illegal, please cite specific applicable laws and cases.
It makes me wonder how they think they're different from MP3.com. Didn't that company try the same thing and didn't that company get shot to bits?
Weren't they the Russian company who was selling MP3s for cheap? Vastly different.
Given that the book settlement didn't work out the way they wanted, I wonder what makes them think this will work out.
The book settlement went bad when Google caved in to the ridiculous demands of the publishers. If Google had fought that case, they'd most likely be much better off. Looks like they're learning. Also, again, vastly different case.
On the post: Homeland Security Doesn't Do Cost/Benefit Analysis; They Just Do Fear And Bluster
Re:
They're called lightning rods, and they're a requirement in many building codes for buildings that are at risk (usually those over a certain height).
Also amazingly, they're well worth the money - a proportional response. A building with a high chance of being struck by lightning can mitigate that risk by strapping a piece of metal onto it with a wire trailing to the ground, something which isn't very expensive.
Now let's try to figure out the how expensive and likely a terrorist incident occurring that justifies the expense of DHS and the civil rights violations of having to be fondled by a stranger, irradiated by a machine, and having our children sexually molested.
On the post: How Many Times Will Skype Be Acquired For Too Much Money By Big Tech Companies With Little Strategic Synergies?
EEE or ...profit?
Bad: Embrace, Extend, Exterminate. Microsoft made an under-the-table deal with the wireless carriers that they'd acquire Skype and render it useless in the mobile space in exchange for the carriers pushing Windows Phone onto users who want Androids and iPhones.
Good: Microsoft genuinely interested in integrating voice into Windows. (don't laugh, stay with me) Right now, Skype and VoIP through a computer are still small when compared to traditional phones/mobiles. Get enough regular non-internet-savvy users into voice chat using something other than a phone number. Integrate Skype through Messenger, through Windows Phone, and through their business apps like LiveMeeting and Communicator. Microsoft just might have the clout to really challenge the telcos.
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Doublespeak
Isn't stopping a doctor from protecting the safety of a child a larger moral issue than worrying that a doctor might offend a parent's sensibilities?
Where are the government over reach protesters? Where are the 'for the children' politicians?
The cognitive dissonance is strong here.
On the post: AC/DC Says Their Songs Will Never Be Available For Download; Rest Of Internet Laughs
Done Dirt Cheap
On the post: 9th Circuit Hears Two Key Cases About DMCA Safe Harbors: IsoHunt And Veoh
Re: Re: Re:
So maybe that torrent up on Isohunt was promotional? How is Isohunt to know whether or not the studio put it up themselves?
But I'm more concerned about your comment of cheese on your pretzel bites. Yeuch. Any sane person knows that only salt or various types of mustard goes on pretzels. Save the cheese for nachos.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Come Out Against New TLDs Because It Creates 'More Space' For Infringement
Re:
Adding a new folder (directory) on my 1 terabyte hard drive does not mean it now holds more than 1 terabyte.
All a domain name is, whether a top level one or not, is a organizational container and a pointer to a resource. They are called URLs - Uniform Resource Locators.
On the post: Labor Board Continues To Warn Companies Not To Fire People Based On Tweets
Where's the line?
So where is the line between complaining about your boss on Facebook and forming a group on Facebook to complaining about management of your employer?
If there is a distinction, its fuzzy enough that the NLRB is justified in taking the stance they did.
On the post: Utah Legislators Want Extra Tax For Owners Of Hybrid & Electric Vehicles
Re: They should be taxed
Strawman. No one is saying they shouldn't be taxed. Mike is saying making hybrid owners pay more because they use less gas is getting the incentives backwards.
There are intelligent ways for lawmakers to make sure that those who drive on the roads pay their fair share for road maintenance. As other commenters have said basing it on vehicle weight or mileage driven makes much more sense.
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's this cliche about a pot and kettle...
Next >>