... I'm rather disillusioned with what often passes for "professional" journalism these days, so I don't see any great harm in letting a wannabe Woodward (or Bernstein) send in his boxtops to get his "citizen journalist" creds.
If we were to equate the skills and practices of a professional brain surgeon to those of a modern professional journalist, I'd give serious thought to just taking my chances on that tumor...
If the lobbying effort was a lie, then you have nothing to worry about. The FCC rule is fairly limited, and applies only to new-release content within a certain window (90 days?). So, if none of the studios is going to release that sort of offering, then they won't be able to use SOC. So, what's your problem?
And the studio campaign made no promises. It was lobbying for opportunities, not making guarantees.
Please note that the "V" in PPV is for "view". Not "record".
And I agree that it seems it would be a much more consumer-friendly business model to give folks more flexibility in being able to hold on to view-once content. Perhaps if more people voted with their wallet, instead of their ripper, the consumer offering would match up better.
No, actualy, it is NOT "well established" that PPV is subject to the same fair use home recording ability as provided to regular over-the-air broadcast TV in the Sony Betamax case.
It very well COULD be a similar fair use, but it is NOT "well established". The courts have not ever ruled on that, and Betamax was actually fairly narrow in its holding.
As long as they tell you what the conditions are (e.g., "This movie may not be output in analong."), how SOC "dishonest"?
I can certainly see that it may not provide a good deal for some consumers, but I don't see how that makes it "dishonest". If you don't like the terms, don't buy it.
Of course, if the consumers is NOT informed of the conditions prior to buying, then that's a different story.
You act like you have a right to keep a PPV for as long as you want. Do you demand a ticket to come back if you have to leave the theatre before the movie is done? Do you demand free rental days from the video store because you weren't able to finish watching the DVD within the original rental period?
I mean, puh-leeze, this righteous indignation seems a little silly.
For Pete's sake, it's only been a few days since the FCC announcement! Don't you think it's just a bit early to be claiming the whole thing's an utter failure and outright lie?
Not to say I think SOC was a great way to go, but I think academic honesty here requires waiting a wee bit longer to see what actually happens before pointing the finger and screaming, "Liars!"
If the woman had a separate account in her own (maiden) name, on whose say-so did Rogers compbine the bills?
Yeah, she may be a two-timing hussy, but her data gets to be just as private as her cuckolded husband's.
It may very well have been a fairly "honest" mistake on Rogers' part, but they may have screwed up. What if it were two unrelated roommates, rather than a husband and wife? And I don't think it really matters that she shouldn't have been having an affair. What if the calls were all to her doctor or something, and this disclosure resulted exposure of a private medical matter?
I wouldn't be so quick to blame her and exonerate Rogers.
At least provide a reliable tool so I can see the usage...
I travel abroad frequently, and have been hit with several large mobile bills (mostly for data).
I actually understand that it's my responsibility to understand the usage charges, and I took steps to reduce my data usage while traveling. However, the bills always seemed to be much higher than I expected. I would sometimes get a call or text message from my provider, warning me that my usage seemed high - but this didn't come until my running bill had hit a figure that was four to five times my normal bill.
I spoke with a customer service rep, and asked for two things:
1. the ability to set my own limit for when they should call me about extreme bills, and
2. a tool that keeps a running tally of my data usage, so I can see for myself when to turn the data connection off.
My provider was not able to provide either of these things, especially in the case of $2, because there is apparently often a lag of up to several days in reporting data usage while roaming internationally.
Why this should be the case ten years into the 21st Century is beyond me.
On the data "counting" tool, there are lots of kilobytes zipping back and forth that you can't see. I can see an email, and how big it is. However, I don't know how many kbs were involved in setting up the connection, inquiring, logging out, etc., etc., etc. - all those "background" processes. I don't doubt that they use kbs, too, I just can't "see" them, so they don't show up in my own tallies.
I think there are third-party tools availble for this, but it really seems a good service provider would provide at least SOME rudimentary way for its customers to track their usage.
Fourth Amendment doesn't protect against private nosiness...
The prohibition against unreasonble search is a Constiutional protection against GOVERNMENT activities, and is not directly applicable to private citizens. If I rifle through your files on an unattended thumb drive (or your unattended bag in a bus station), you may have some claim against me for trespass to chattels or something, but not a Fourth Amendment claim that you can't be prosecuted for the illegal stuff I found and then turned over to the police.
Based on the very brief description of this situation in the original post here, this was a private actor, not an agent of law enforcement, who found the child porn.
This pervert was caught because of his own carelessness, not because the governmetn obatined any evidence in an illegal manner.
Well, I'm not sure I would agree that merely continuing your conduct in the presence of what might be an "obvious" camera is not the same as consenting, especially when the camera is in the hands of a private individual (as opposed to traffic cams, security cameras in public areas or in malls, etc.).
HOWEVER, given that this officer (whether off-duty or not) was engaged in his role as a public servant, I think he should not be able to lay claim to any expectation of privacy. If a news reporter just happened to be standing nearby and captured the whole thing on a camera belonging to a news organization, there'd be no argument here.
That being said, I would understand that the video might be considered evidence, and that the police/prosecuter might need to use it as such.
On a related note, I think that private citizens captured on police dash-cams should be able to obtain a copy of the tape of their encounter with the officer, whether there is a dispute over what the tape shows or not.
From the original post: "Secondary liability is a dangerous concept that applies the liability to a third party because it's difficult to find the actual perpetrator. But, in what world does it make sense for you to blame an innocent bystander just because it's hard to find the actual person responsible."
The concept of secondary liability is not about blaming "innocent bystanders". The concept is that even this third party has in some significant way participated in and/or contributed to the commission of the offense.
Yes, its application can be mis-used, but please don't start off by "explaining" the concept in a false light.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite as nefarious as you suggest...
I'm not sure what "agenda" on my part you're referring to, but I do think the patent is something of a red herring, though it has clearly made for some enthusiastic posting here.
On that note, I think I've presented some very reasonable and informed arguments in a fairly polite manner, and don't seem to really be impacting your own thinking on this topic, so perhaps this is a good place to call it a day.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite as nefarious as you suggest...
The manufacturer can (and many do) infringemetn analyses of their own if they have reason to believe there is a patent that might be an issue. They use the same laws the court will apply and look up the same precedent that will be presented to the court. They then make their best estimate as to how they think it will likely come out. That's just like any element of their business. You can only make reasoned estimates of risk, demand, price sensitivity, etc. There are no guarantees in any of it - not just patent risk.
However, this sort of analysis can help mitigate the risk of being sued for patent infringement in the first place, and help provide support in case you're sued anyway.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite as nefarious as you suggest...
Whether there is a patent involved is irrelevant, really. The case might very well have been one involving whether a certain type of steel were used in the device, and the result is that those how make the right kind of steel are now in a position to charge more for their product, since demand will arguably rise.
Perhaps it would be helpful to know if you have some sort of fundamental objection to product liabiilty cases, and prefer a more "caveat emptor" or "laissez-faire" approach when it comes to the interaction between manufacturers and consumers? I'm not saying that would be right or wrong, but might help me understand a bit better where you're coming from on this.
For instance, if there were multiple known ways of addressing this table saw blade issue, would you still object to a jury verdict that basically said it was unreasonable to not include some way of stopping the blade when it contacts a body part?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite as nefarious as you suggest...
It's quite simple, really. A workaround is designed to avoid infringement of a particular patent claim. If you get sued and lose - i.e., your workaround still infringes the patent claim - then how can you call it a workaround? You might call it an "attempted workaround" or something, I guess.
The objective for whether a workaround is successful is essentialy the same standard for infringement. If it infringes, it's not a workaround.
OK. Let's say a patent plaintiff sues you, claiming that your Product X1 infringes his patent, and you respond by heading back to your workshop and tinkering until you come up with Product X2, which you believe includes a workaround that gets you out of infringing the plaintiff's patent. The plaintiff can still do the infringement analysis again and claim that your "workaround" hasn't changed anything, and Product X2 ALSO infringes his patent. There's no separate standadrd for workarounds. The workaround either infringes or it doesn't. If it infringes, it's not really a workaround, because it doesn't meet the goal of not infringing the patent at issue.
Whether juries are elected or not is irrelevant. The point is, they are (for the most part - not perfectly, of course) randomly selected from the population at large, and there is an effort to ensure that they don't have gross biases that will unfairly influence the outcome of the case.
A "workaround" that loses in an infringement suit is, QED, not a workaround.
I'm quite willing to bet that there is not a single governmetn document that says, "saw manufacturers are hereby reuqired to license the [insert name here] technology and incorporate it into all future table saws." Rather, a jury has basically said that there is at least one known way to deal with a known safety issue, and it's not reasonable to just ignore the safety issue when there is at least one know way to address it. No saw manufacturer is REQUIRED to incorporate the safety technology. They could charge every saw customer an extra ten bucks (or whatever) to create a fund out of which to pay judgments. That is also a perfectly legal way to deal with this. No licenss required.
Of course, we can all shift the argument to whether this particular safety issue really IS a safety issue that we need to be worried about. However, that's not what has been proposed. For purposes of this discussion, I have been operating under the assumption that we are not really questioning wheether the safety issue really is a problem or whether the technology in question is really an answer to it. I have perceived that the queston here is simply whether a jury verdict in a product liability case which has the very practical impact of steering manufacturers to a particular patented technology (and, currently, the only known way to address the issue raised by the jury) is fairly construed as a "government requirement" that all manufacturers take out a license for said patented technology.
Respectfully, I suggest that the answer is "no". Yes, there are some very practical issues that will absolutely steer some to take out a licesne, but there are also other factors which make it clear that taking the license is not the only way to respond.
On the post: Can We Please Put The 'Amateur Brain Surgeon' Strawman To Rest?
Re: Balance?
HM
On the post: Can We Please Put The 'Amateur Brain Surgeon' Strawman To Rest?
Re: Re:
One of the worst episodes ever, but kudos for working in the reference!
HM
On the post: Can We Please Put The 'Amateur Brain Surgeon' Strawman To Rest?
Frankly...
If we were to equate the skills and practices of a professional brain surgeon to those of a modern professional journalist, I'd give serious thought to just taking my chances on that tumor...
HM
On the post: Remember How Hollywood Promised Lots Of New Content If It Could Break Your TV/DVR? Yeah, That's Not Happening...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Criminy!
Not sure your "guarantees" mean very much...
HM
On the post: Remember How Hollywood Promised Lots Of New Content If It Could Break Your TV/DVR? Yeah, That's Not Happening...
Re: Re: Criminy!
And the studio campaign made no promises. It was lobbying for opportunities, not making guarantees.
HM
On the post: Remember How Hollywood Promised Lots Of New Content If It Could Break Your TV/DVR? Yeah, That's Not Happening...
Re:
And I agree that it seems it would be a much more consumer-friendly business model to give folks more flexibility in being able to hold on to view-once content. Perhaps if more people voted with their wallet, instead of their ripper, the consumer offering would match up better.
HM
On the post: Remember How Hollywood Promised Lots Of New Content If It Could Break Your TV/DVR? Yeah, That's Not Happening...
Re: Re: Re: PPV
It very well COULD be a similar fair use, but it is NOT "well established". The courts have not ever ruled on that, and Betamax was actually fairly narrow in its holding.
HM
On the post: Remember How Hollywood Promised Lots Of New Content If It Could Break Your TV/DVR? Yeah, That's Not Happening...
Re:
I can certainly see that it may not provide a good deal for some consumers, but I don't see how that makes it "dishonest". If you don't like the terms, don't buy it.
Of course, if the consumers is NOT informed of the conditions prior to buying, then that's a different story.
HM
On the post: Remember How Hollywood Promised Lots Of New Content If It Could Break Your TV/DVR? Yeah, That's Not Happening...
Re: PPV
I mean, puh-leeze, this righteous indignation seems a little silly.
HM
On the post: Remember How Hollywood Promised Lots Of New Content If It Could Break Your TV/DVR? Yeah, That's Not Happening...
Criminy!
Not to say I think SOC was a great way to go, but I think academic honesty here requires waiting a wee bit longer to see what actually happens before pointing the finger and screaming, "Liars!"
HM
On the post: Woman Sues Mobile Phone Provider, Because Consolidated Bill 'Revealed' Her Affair
Seems a straightforward privacy issue
Yeah, she may be a two-timing hussy, but her data gets to be just as private as her cuckolded husband's.
It may very well have been a fairly "honest" mistake on Rogers' part, but they may have screwed up. What if it were two unrelated roommates, rather than a husband and wife? And I don't think it really matters that she shouldn't have been having an affair. What if the calls were all to her doctor or something, and this disclosure resulted exposure of a private medical matter?
I wouldn't be so quick to blame her and exonerate Rogers.
HM
On the post: Confused Users Keep Racking Up Ridiculous 3G Bills, Wireless Carriers Keep Helping Them
At least provide a reliable tool so I can see the usage...
I actually understand that it's my responsibility to understand the usage charges, and I took steps to reduce my data usage while traveling. However, the bills always seemed to be much higher than I expected. I would sometimes get a call or text message from my provider, warning me that my usage seemed high - but this didn't come until my running bill had hit a figure that was four to five times my normal bill.
I spoke with a customer service rep, and asked for two things:
1. the ability to set my own limit for when they should call me about extreme bills, and
2. a tool that keeps a running tally of my data usage, so I can see for myself when to turn the data connection off.
My provider was not able to provide either of these things, especially in the case of $2, because there is apparently often a lag of up to several days in reporting data usage while roaming internationally.
Why this should be the case ten years into the 21st Century is beyond me.
On the data "counting" tool, there are lots of kilobytes zipping back and forth that you can't see. I can see an email, and how big it is. However, I don't know how many kbs were involved in setting up the connection, inquiring, logging out, etc., etc., etc. - all those "background" processes. I don't doubt that they use kbs, too, I just can't "see" them, so they don't show up in my own tallies.
I think there are third-party tools availble for this, but it really seems a good service provider would provide at least SOME rudimentary way for its customers to track their usage.
HM
On the post: Duh, Don't Leave A Thumb Drive With Child Porn Plugged Into A Shared Computer
Fourth Amendment doesn't protect against private nosiness...
Based on the very brief description of this situation in the original post here, this was a private actor, not an agent of law enforcement, who found the child porn.
This pervert was caught because of his own carelessness, not because the governmetn obatined any evidence in an illegal manner.
Book 'im, Dan-o.
HM
On the post: Maryland Police Confiscate Biker's Computers After He Catches Questionable Activity On Helmet Cam
Re: Involuntary recording
HOWEVER, given that this officer (whether off-duty or not) was engaged in his role as a public servant, I think he should not be able to lay claim to any expectation of privacy. If a news reporter just happened to be standing nearby and captured the whole thing on a camera belonging to a news organization, there'd be no argument here.
That being said, I would understand that the video might be considered evidence, and that the police/prosecuter might need to use it as such.
On a related note, I think that private citizens captured on police dash-cams should be able to obtain a copy of the tape of their encounter with the officer, whether there is a dispute over what the tape shows or not.
HM
On the post: How Third Party Liability Can Stifle An Industry
...sigh...
The concept of secondary liability is not about blaming "innocent bystanders". The concept is that even this third party has in some significant way participated in and/or contributed to the commission of the offense.
Yes, its application can be mis-used, but please don't start off by "explaining" the concept in a false light.
HM
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite as nefarious as you suggest...
On that note, I think I've presented some very reasonable and informed arguments in a fairly polite manner, and don't seem to really be impacting your own thinking on this topic, so perhaps this is a good place to call it a day.
Thanks for chatting.
HM
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite as nefarious as you suggest...
However, this sort of analysis can help mitigate the risk of being sued for patent infringement in the first place, and help provide support in case you're sued anyway.
HM
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite as nefarious as you suggest...
Perhaps it would be helpful to know if you have some sort of fundamental objection to product liabiilty cases, and prefer a more "caveat emptor" or "laissez-faire" approach when it comes to the interaction between manufacturers and consumers? I'm not saying that would be right or wrong, but might help me understand a bit better where you're coming from on this.
For instance, if there were multiple known ways of addressing this table saw blade issue, would you still object to a jury verdict that basically said it was unreasonable to not include some way of stopping the blade when it contacts a body part?
HM
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not quite as nefarious as you suggest...
The objective for whether a workaround is successful is essentialy the same standard for infringement. If it infringes, it's not a workaround.
OK. Let's say a patent plaintiff sues you, claiming that your Product X1 infringes his patent, and you respond by heading back to your workshop and tinkering until you come up with Product X2, which you believe includes a workaround that gets you out of infringing the plaintiff's patent. The plaintiff can still do the infringement analysis again and claim that your "workaround" hasn't changed anything, and Product X2 ALSO infringes his patent. There's no separate standadrd for workarounds. The workaround either infringes or it doesn't. If it infringes, it's not really a workaround, because it doesn't meet the goal of not infringing the patent at issue.
HM
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Re: Re: Not quite as nefarious as you suggest...
A "workaround" that loses in an infringement suit is, QED, not a workaround.
I'm quite willing to bet that there is not a single governmetn document that says, "saw manufacturers are hereby reuqired to license the [insert name here] technology and incorporate it into all future table saws." Rather, a jury has basically said that there is at least one known way to deal with a known safety issue, and it's not reasonable to just ignore the safety issue when there is at least one know way to address it. No saw manufacturer is REQUIRED to incorporate the safety technology. They could charge every saw customer an extra ten bucks (or whatever) to create a fund out of which to pay judgments. That is also a perfectly legal way to deal with this. No licenss required.
Of course, we can all shift the argument to whether this particular safety issue really IS a safety issue that we need to be worried about. However, that's not what has been proposed. For purposes of this discussion, I have been operating under the assumption that we are not really questioning wheether the safety issue really is a problem or whether the technology in question is really an answer to it. I have perceived that the queston here is simply whether a jury verdict in a product liability case which has the very practical impact of steering manufacturers to a particular patented technology (and, currently, the only known way to address the issue raised by the jury) is fairly construed as a "government requirement" that all manufacturers take out a license for said patented technology.
Respectfully, I suggest that the answer is "no". Yes, there are some very practical issues that will absolutely steer some to take out a licesne, but there are also other factors which make it clear that taking the license is not the only way to respond.
HM
Next >>