Actually I believe that much (most) of a typical pharmaceutical company's R&D (drug R&D that is) is actually accomplished at universities, many of those publicly funded.
The largest expense is, wait for it, marketing. Someone has to pay for all those television and magazine ads that push drugs you (as a non-doctor) can't actually prescribe for yourself. That and all the encouragement (a.k.a. kickbacks, bribes, free dinners and retreats, and my favorite lobbying).
The longer a patent lasts, and the easier it is to restrict others (including generic manufactures) the less likely we are to see new and innovative drugs developed. Get a patent, cash in, tweak that patent, cash in, country doesn't let you extend the patent on an existing drug by cosmetically tweaking it, sue that Country.
If you look at history, countries with weak/non-existent patents on drugs created the most innovative treatments. Patents discourage innovation and encourage rent seeking.
The problem isn't just that, "...Indians are producing their own and selling it for 97% cheaper...", while that admittedly ruffles their feathers. I think the bigger concern is that the Indians will start selling it to others 95% cheaper than they do.
This would be especially painful if they those affluent Westerners his company claims to be targeting start buying these generics.
First; we aren't (at least I'm not) talking about social problems (poverty, lack of health care, clean air & water, enough food to eat, etc.).
Second; if you honestly think we've have anything even remotely resembling a free market in the U.S. for the last xx years, you haven't been paying attention.
In this specific case the problem is the government. The governmented grant of copyright, the governmented prohibition on circumventing DRM.
In general, if the government defends the rights of the citizens against businesses (and itself) it does good. It is when it abuses the citizenry for the benefit of businesses (or itself) that people suffer.
Well there is a big difference between a private business and the government. The former can try to restrain you all it likes (prior or not) and the government is restricted by that pesky little "First Amendment" thing. At least they are supposed to be in the U.S.
Companies like Nintendo, Sony, et. al. can design all the restrictions they want into their products. The problem becomes when they use the power of the government to prevent you from doing what you want with what you've bought.
Without government coercion you would be able to copy whatever you wanted, share whatever you wanted, and work around any issues (break DRM) that prevent that. The problems are:
1. Government granted monopoly, copyright, that's supposed to limit your rights, for a limited time, in select cases, as an encouragement to produce more works for everyone. It's been extended, including retroactively, effectively forever. The limited rights restricted rights and broad exceptions have been reversed in practice. The copyright holder now has broad rights and the public increasingly limited exceptions.
2. Government enforced DRM. With the passage of the DMCA and the infamous anti-circumvention provision, copyright holders can use the government to force you to accept whatever ham handed attempt to limit your use of copyrighted material they want to try. It's gotten so out of hand that it's being applied to completely unrelated things. In this case Nintendo doesn't let you run non-Nintendo approved software/media on your console. If you try to fix that you've broken the law (at least in the U.S., maybe not now in Europe). Sony can prevent you from running an alternative OS on your PS3. DVD manufacturers can be prevented from building DVD players that let you skip warnings and ads, and it's illegal if you want to fix that problem yourself. Printer makers can prevent you from using off brand ink cartridges and garage door manufacturers work to keep you from using an unapproved door opener.
The problem isn't 'prior restraint', that doesn't apply to non-government actors. The problem is that the government makes it illegal to do perfectly legal things. Get rid of copyright or at least anti-circumvention restrictions and let the market work it out. Companies that insist in DRM will lose out to those that don't, or find their DRM quickly broken.
I think you may be reading to much into that phase seeing a restriction where there isn't one.
An alternative reading would be that ...illegal purposes... mean on that would be found to infringe copyright. This interpretation would place it in the same category as the Betamax ruling. Making Fair Use of a copyrighted work (such as home taping with the then new video recorder), is by definition a legal use. In the same vain Fair Dealing wouldn't be illegal and hence permitted by this ruling.
Just because the MPAA/RIAA doesn't recognize Fair Use/Fair Dealing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact the court has explicitly recognized the right to break DRM for legal uses. This means, if it's upheld, that it's legal to break DRM in Europe that the DMCA makes illegal to break in the U.S.
The problem of course is that internet access, like phone, cable, water, sewer, electric, and the road network is a natural monopoly. The only reason we even have the limited duopoly in many cases is due to the re-purposing of other existing networks (telephone and cable television). It doesn't make sense to have every would be competitor run duplicate networks to everyone's homes.
Back in the days of dial up, ISP's all shared the telephone network and the telephone network was classified as a 'common carrier'. We had lots of competition, rates were reasonable, anyone got too obnoxious you could easily switch to a competitor.
Broadband _should_ have been the same. Unfortunately lobbyists and lies have lead us to monopolies (or cooperative duopolies) with all the attendant high prices, low quality, and terrible customer service that inevitably follows.
The only solution, as far as I can see, is to;
Reclassify existing broadband providers as 'common carriers'. With all the regulations and oversight that entails.
Split the network from the access. One company maintains and sells access to the network, another sells access to the internet.
The network is open to any all companies that want to run an ISP.
Eventually the network company will most likely end up being a municipal or non-profit entity with it's costs being used to maintain and upgrade the network. The other option would be like the dial up days, Ma Bell owns the network and is highly regulated, AOL, Earthlink, etc. offer internet access over that network and are less heavily (though there should still be basic consumer protection) regulated.
I've said it before, and I think it's important enough to bear repeating;
If you really want to increase peoples privacy (and you know honor the 4th amendment) the simplest thing to do is not let anyone intercept or store any data.
Step 1: Companies are prohibited to keep any data any longer than necessary to support the purpose it was generated for.
For phone records that would mean:
Unlimited plans - never, disappears as soon as you hang up. Per minute plans - number, time/date and duration of calls for 30 days after the most recent billing cycle (to give the customer time to contest a bill and the company something to defend it with).
That's it. Simple, easy, privacy enhancing. No location data, no call content, metadata only exits for two billing cycles and only for people on per minute plans.
Sure the NSA(or FBI, or CIA, etc.) could go to a judge and get a warrant to request the telecommunications company to retain data going forward for a particular person, for a limited period of time, in support of a probable cause showing. You know that whole fourth amendment/due process thing.
While we're at it we could expand that to all of the data that other companies glean about us. ISPs/Banks/Grocery stores all of them.
Step 2: Take the third party doctrine out back and put a single bullet through it's head (make that two).
That doctrine barely made sense when it was created and makes no sense now. Just because you've asked someone else to store your data, doesn't mean you have no privacy interest in it. You doctor always held lots of very private data about you. That doesn't mean you have no expectation that she'll keep that data private. You rent and apartment or a storage locker, that doesn't mean you've consented to letting the local police department rummage about it without a warrant. If we ever expect people to be safe with cell phones and cloud providers their privacy interests most definitely need to be respected.
The surveillance state may be good for the state, but it is terrible for the citizens of that state.
Remember in a free society, it's supposed to be tough for the police to do their jobs. Otherwise you are living in a police state.
I think we are in danger of missing the fundamental argument. If we get sucked in to discussing the best place to store collected data (NSA, FBA, ATT, somewhere else) we've already lost.
The main argument isn't where to store the collected data, it's whether or not to collect it in the first place. The data should be created, exist, then disappear.
If I'm not a suspect in any particular crime at the time of the collection, then my private data (phone calls, emails, *metadata*) shouldn't end up in any repository.
It's the same tired data retention argument all over again.
People can't be truly free if you have to worry that any utterance you make could someday be used to crucify you.
Dick Durbin, the Democratic senator from Illinois and Senate majority whip during yesterday's senate hearing asks this loaded question:
"That's all very well, Durbin says, but would it not be possible for the phone companies to retain their own records over a given time period: "So it would not be in the grasp of the government?"
Inglis says that would be possible. It would require legal changes."
They (the government) tried to require companies to maintain "business records" so that they could rummage through it at their leisure (re: recent 5th circuit decision) without a warrant or any other oversight. It didn't happen. So, they just started collecting all of that data themselves.
Now that they've been called out on it they are offering to stop, but only if they can force companies to store and maintain this data for them.
Give us what we want or we'll do it ourselves, to heck if it's illegal. If you want us to stop then you should've just done what wanted to begin with.
Sounds an awful lot like crooks telling you to give them all of your money. When later caught with their pockets full of your money and jewelry a helpful cop suggests; "What if we just put all of our money and jewelry in that box over there, that way you wouldn't have to break in to people's houses anymore? The robber replies, says that would be possible. It would require legal changes.
How about if the government tries to actually follow the law?
How about the president and congress upholding the constitution for a change?
How about a law that says companies can not generate, keep, or re-purpose your data for any reason other than the one you gave it to them for?
As for cell phones (a.k.a. government trackers that you can talk/text with) I find it kind of damming that you can't turn off your 'location services' (gps) for everything. It would be a simple matter for the phone to turn it back on again _when_you_dialed_911_. I guess if you could, you might, and then they would have to rely on the less accurate cell tower records.
As we should be well aware of since the Obama administration;
"the most open, accountable, and transparent government" is actually Gov. speak for the most closed, unaccountable and opaque government ever.
Any time you hear a government agency utter those words, pack a lunch and prepare for an Everest sized attempt at finding out what's _really_ going on.
I think we are doing the NYPD a grave disservice. Their intent is obvious.
They are not trying to abuse anyone's civil liberties, nor as some people incorrectly assume are they trying to stop crime (that's why they 10% guilty rate doesn't faze them).
They are simply taking Arizona's version of now disavowed republican taking points regarding illegal immigration and putting it into action.
The obvious goal of this policy is to get _undesirable_ groups (i.e minorities, esp. blacks age 14-21) to "self deport". Make life so miserable for the _undesirables_ that they will leave New York of their own accord.
The fact that most of these people are native born American citizens and have no other country to actually go to isn't a problem. The NYPD don't care if they never leave the country, just as long as they leave New York City.
Now that that's cleared up, doesn't it make much more sense?
[not that I think it's a good idea or anything, just trying to clear things up. ;> ]
We've long since 'cut the cord' at my house. Flat panel televisions used for, in order:
PS3
PS2
XBOX 360
NetFlix
DVD
BlueRay
Not too long ago I got a call from a polite Nielsen rep. asking if we would be willing to 'be a Nielsen family'. I tried to explain to the nice lady that we don't subscribe to cable TV, satellite, or even watch over the air channels.
That was a difficult conversation to say the least. Finally she settled on the line that all types of television watching people were important and if we could maintain some diaries for them anyway. In the end I said, sure why not.
The diaries arrived in the mail and the appointed week rolled around. I diligently filled them in.
[tv on - time], [tv off - time] channel watched - [none]
again and again it went.
In the notes at the end I reiterated that we have no, cable, satellite, over the air capability (even our internet isn't through the cable company). There were no channels, because we don't use our televisions in that way.
I sometimes wonder what they made of that info......
True, it didn't outlaw class action lawsuits, just class action arbitration. Hence the mad rush for every company you do business with to force arbitration on their customers, whether they wanted it or not (see previous example of onerous process to 'opt-out' of arbitration in current contracts).
The end result is the same, companies relying on the "AT&T vs Concepcion" decision effectively preempted class action lawsuits from their customers.
Personally I think that arbitration is a perfectly valid option between two companies that negotiate a contract between then, but they should be categorically forbidden in consumer contracts, especially contracts of adhesion.
That would be nice, if the Supreme Court hadn't recently ruled (in a case involving AT&T no less), that companies are perfectly within their rights to contractually forbid class action lawsuits.
California thought that was unconscionable, but the Supreme Court apparently found that to be just fine by them.
Shortly there after, company after company started adding the 'no class action lawsuits' language to their contracts. Most required you to mail (as in a piece of paper) to a physical address, on magic fairy paper to be delivered on a Feb. 29th that happened to fall on a Sunday, during a full moon (O.K. I made that last part up).
They 'notify you of the change' via email, phone call, click through, etc, but you can _only_ not accept via snail mail.
Remember contracts are only binding on __you__. The company gets to change the terms and condition at their sole discretion _without_ notice to you.
Nice thought, but I think your example is off the mark.
The failure of the government in the banking mess, wasn't too much regulation, but not enough. In that case more regulation, or simply getting back to the level that existed prior to the greed induced orgy of death and despair would probably be sufficient.
Brief history lesson;
Few and ineffective regulations of the financial sector coupled with greed and avarice leads to "Great Depression".
Regulations added by government and enforced (mostly) lead ,if not to prosperity, to reasonable stability in the financial markets.
Years pass, greed and avarice and corporate "free speech" (contributions) aided by misguided individuals and organizations who believe government regulation == bad cause the erosion of financial regulation.
When enough of the previously stabilizing regulations have been done away with, greed and avarice once more lead to the collapse of the financial markets, the "Great Recession". The only thing keeping it from sliding into another "Great Depression" is the liberal application of government (read tax payer) money.
The reckless businesses use tax payer money to give themselves large bonuses and try to screw the very taxpayers that "bailed" their businesses out with questionable foreclosures and creative fees.
Now when saner heads suggest that returning to a more effective level of government regulation of the financial markets, the same people that argued for deregulation point to the near collapse of the financial world as a reason why government regulation is bad. (wtf?!@#$!?)
In their mind;
Government regulation == bad.
Government bailout money == good.
We've nearly completed our transition from a Republic to a Corporatocricy. Government by the corporation for the corporation.
We socialize risk and privatize profit. Is it any wonder we now have a stagnant economy and the wealth distribution of a third world dictatorship?
Welcome to America, where socialism is "bad" (unless it benefits them) and companies make most of their money suing others with their _government_granted_ monopoly rights.....
On the post: Bayer's CEO: We Develop Drugs For Rich Westerners, Not Poor Indians
Re: Re: [Mostly publicly funded R&D anyway]
The largest expense is, wait for it, marketing. Someone has to pay for all those television and magazine ads that push drugs you (as a non-doctor) can't actually prescribe for yourself. That and all the encouragement (a.k.a. kickbacks, bribes, free dinners and retreats, and my favorite lobbying).
The longer a patent lasts, and the easier it is to restrict others (including generic manufactures) the less likely we are to see new and innovative drugs developed. Get a patent, cash in, tweak that patent, cash in, country doesn't let you extend the patent on an existing drug by cosmetically tweaking it, sue that Country.
If you look at history, countries with weak/non-existent patents on drugs created the most innovative treatments. Patents discourage innovation and encourage rent seeking.
On the post: Bayer's CEO: We Develop Drugs For Rich Westerners, Not Poor Indians
Re: Why does he care then?
This would be especially painful if they those affluent Westerners his company claims to be targeting start buying these generics.
On the post: Europe's Highest Court Says DRM Circumvention May Be Lawful In Certain Circumstances
Re: Re: Re: Why is DRM legal at all?
First; we aren't (at least I'm not) talking about social problems (poverty, lack of health care, clean air & water, enough food to eat, etc.).
Second; if you honestly think we've have anything even remotely resembling a free market in the U.S. for the last xx years, you haven't been paying attention.
In this specific case the problem is the government. The governmented grant of copyright, the governmented prohibition on circumventing DRM.
In general, if the government defends the rights of the citizens against businesses (and itself) it does good. It is when it abuses the citizenry for the benefit of businesses (or itself) that people suffer.
On the post: Europe's Highest Court Says DRM Circumvention May Be Lawful In Certain Circumstances
Re: Why is DRM legal at all?
Companies like Nintendo, Sony, et. al. can design all the restrictions they want into their products. The problem becomes when they use the power of the government to prevent you from doing what you want with what you've bought.
Without government coercion you would be able to copy whatever you wanted, share whatever you wanted, and work around any issues (break DRM) that prevent that. The problems are:
1. Government granted monopoly, copyright, that's supposed to limit your rights, for a limited time, in select cases, as an encouragement to produce more works for everyone. It's been extended, including retroactively, effectively forever. The limited rights restricted rights and broad exceptions have been reversed in practice. The copyright holder now has broad rights and the public increasingly limited exceptions.
2. Government enforced DRM. With the passage of the DMCA and the infamous anti-circumvention provision, copyright holders can use the government to force you to accept whatever ham handed attempt to limit your use of copyrighted material they want to try. It's gotten so out of hand that it's being applied to completely unrelated things. In this case Nintendo doesn't let you run non-Nintendo approved software/media on your console. If you try to fix that you've broken the law (at least in the U.S., maybe not now in Europe). Sony can prevent you from running an alternative OS on your PS3. DVD manufacturers can be prevented from building DVD players that let you skip warnings and ads, and it's illegal if you want to fix that problem yourself. Printer makers can prevent you from using off brand ink cartridges and garage door manufacturers work to keep you from using an unapproved door opener.
The problem isn't 'prior restraint', that doesn't apply to non-government actors. The problem is that the government makes it illegal to do perfectly legal things. Get rid of copyright or at least anti-circumvention restrictions and let the market work it out. Companies that insist in DRM will lose out to those that don't, or find their DRM quickly broken.
On the post: Europe's Highest Court Says DRM Circumvention May Be Lawful In Certain Circumstances
Re: Lawful circumvention is lawful. Illegal as in piratage still illegal.
1. Pirates don't usually care about artists, unless they happen to be on board the ship they've targeted.
2. Not all uses of copyrighted material require permission.
On the post: Europe's Highest Court Says DRM Circumvention May Be Lawful In Certain Circumstances
Re: "Mainly used for legal or illegal purposes"
An alternative reading would be that ...illegal purposes... mean on that would be found to infringe copyright. This interpretation would place it in the same category as the Betamax ruling. Making Fair Use of a copyrighted work (such as home taping with the then new video recorder), is by definition a legal use. In the same vain Fair Dealing wouldn't be illegal and hence permitted by this ruling.
Just because the MPAA/RIAA doesn't recognize Fair Use/Fair Dealing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact the court has explicitly recognized the right to break DRM for legal uses. This means, if it's upheld, that it's legal to break DRM in Europe that the DMCA makes illegal to break in the U.S.
On the post: Losing Net Neutrality Is The Symptom, Not The Problem: Now Is The Time To Focus On Real Competition
Natural monopoly
Back in the days of dial up, ISP's all shared the telephone network and the telephone network was classified as a 'common carrier'. We had lots of competition, rates were reasonable, anyone got too obnoxious you could easily switch to a competitor.
Broadband _should_ have been the same. Unfortunately lobbyists and lies have lead us to monopolies (or cooperative duopolies) with all the attendant high prices, low quality, and terrible customer service that inevitably follows.
The only solution, as far as I can see, is to;
Reclassify existing broadband providers as 'common carriers'. With all the regulations and oversight that entails.
Split the network from the access. One company maintains and sells access to the network, another sells access to the internet.
The network is open to any all companies that want to run an ISP.
Eventually the network company will most likely end up being a municipal or non-profit entity with it's costs being used to maintain and upgrade the network. The other option would be like the dial up days, Ma Bell owns the network and is highly regulated, AOL, Earthlink, etc. offer internet access over that network and are less heavily (though there should still be basic consumer protection) regulated.
On the post: Intelligence Community Lawyers Argue That Curbing Metadata Collections Will Damage Americans' Privacy
Simple: Don't let _anyone_ keep it.
If you really want to increase peoples privacy (and you know honor the 4th amendment) the simplest thing to do is not let anyone intercept or store any data.
Step 1: Companies are prohibited to keep any data any longer than necessary to support the purpose it was generated for.
For phone records that would mean:
That's it. Simple, easy, privacy enhancing. No location data, no call content, metadata only exits for two billing cycles and only for people on per minute plans.
Sure the NSA(or FBI, or CIA, etc.) could go to a judge and get a warrant to request the telecommunications company to retain data going forward for a particular person, for a limited period of time, in support of a probable cause showing. You know that whole fourth amendment/due process thing.
While we're at it we could expand that to all of the data that other companies glean about us. ISPs/Banks/Grocery stores all of them.
Step 2: Take the third party doctrine out back and put a single bullet through it's head (make that two).
That doctrine barely made sense when it was created and makes no sense now. Just because you've asked someone else to store your data, doesn't mean you have no privacy interest in it. You doctor always held lots of very private data about you. That doesn't mean you have no expectation that she'll keep that data private. You rent and apartment or a storage locker, that doesn't mean you've consented to letting the local police department rummage about it without a warrant. If we ever expect people to be safe with cell phones and cloud providers their privacy interests most definitely need to be respected.
The surveillance state may be good for the state, but it is terrible for the citizens of that state.
Remember in a free society, it's supposed to be tough for the police to do their jobs. Otherwise you are living in a police state.
On the post: Gen. Alexander Offers To Store Phone Metadata At A 'Neutral Site' To Alleviate Concerns About The NSA's Spying
Having this discussion conceeds the argument.
The main argument isn't where to store the collected data, it's whether or not to collect it in the first place. The data should be created, exist, then disappear.
If I'm not a suspect in any particular crime at the time of the collection, then my private data (phone calls, emails, *metadata*) shouldn't end up in any repository.
It's the same tired data retention argument all over again.
People can't be truly free if you have to worry that any utterance you make could someday be used to crucify you.
As Cardinal Richelieu was famously quoted:
On the post: Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Upholds Decision That Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Doesn't Violate Fourth Amendment
Mandatory data retention returning
"That's all very well, Durbin says, but would it not be possible for the phone companies to retain their own records over a given time period: "So it would not be in the grasp of the government?"
Inglis says that would be possible. It would require legal changes."
They (the government) tried to require companies to maintain "business records" so that they could rummage through it at their leisure (re: recent 5th circuit decision) without a warrant or any other oversight. It didn't happen. So, they just started collecting all of that data themselves.
Now that they've been called out on it they are offering to stop, but only if they can force companies to store and maintain this data for them.
Give us what we want or we'll do it ourselves, to heck if it's illegal. If you want us to stop then you should've just done what wanted to begin with.
Sounds an awful lot like crooks telling you to give them all of your money. When later caught with their pockets full of your money and jewelry a helpful cop suggests; "What if we just put all of our money and jewelry in that box over there, that way you wouldn't have to break in to people's houses anymore? The robber replies, says that would be possible. It would require legal changes.
How about if the government tries to actually follow the law?
How about the president and congress upholding the constitution for a change?
How about a law that says companies can not generate, keep, or re-purpose your data for any reason other than the one you gave it to them for?
As for cell phones (a.k.a. government trackers that you can talk/text with) I find it kind of damming that you can't turn off your 'location services' (gps) for everything. It would be a simple matter for the phone to turn it back on again _when_you_dialed_911_. I guess if you could, you might, and then they would have to rely on the less accurate cell tower records.
On the post: NSA Bosses Mantra: Who Cares What The Law Says, 'Collect It All'
to paraphase... badly
NSA boss Keith Alexander: "Collect it all, let God...um...FISA...um.. someone sort it out."
NSA boss Keith Alexander: "On second thought, let just keep it."
On the post: Chicago School System On FOIA Requests: Stonewalling, Obfuscation, & Paper-Shredding
Gov. speak
"the most open, accountable, and transparent government" is actually Gov. speak for the most closed, unaccountable and opaque government ever.
Any time you hear a government agency utter those words, pack a lunch and prepare for an Everest sized attempt at finding out what's _really_ going on.
On the post: This Is My Pencil. This Is My Pencil Pretending To Be A Gun. One Is For Writing. One Is For Mandatory Suspensions.
Zero Tolerance == Zero Intelligence
That about sums it up.
On the post: Former Police Chief Defends NYPD's 'Stop And Frisk' Program, Because It Has A Checklist
Self deportation....
They are not trying to abuse anyone's civil liberties, nor as some people incorrectly assume are they trying to stop crime (that's why they 10% guilty rate doesn't faze them).
They are simply taking Arizona's version of now disavowed republican taking points regarding illegal immigration and putting it into action.
The obvious goal of this policy is to get _undesirable_ groups (i.e minorities, esp. blacks age 14-21) to "self deport". Make life so miserable for the _undesirables_ that they will leave New York of their own accord.
The fact that most of these people are native born American citizens and have no other country to actually go to isn't a problem. The NYPD don't care if they never leave the country, just as long as they leave New York City.
Now that that's cleared up, doesn't it make much more sense?
[not that I think it's a good idea or anything, just trying to clear things up. ;> ]
On the post: Nielsen Finally Realizes That TV Viewers Are Cord Cutting, Calls It 'Interesting Consumer Behavior'
this cord cutter also a Nielsen family ....
PS3
PS2
XBOX 360
NetFlix
DVD
BlueRay
Not too long ago I got a call from a polite Nielsen rep. asking if we would be willing to 'be a Nielsen family'. I tried to explain to the nice lady that we don't subscribe to cable TV, satellite, or even watch over the air channels.
That was a difficult conversation to say the least. Finally she settled on the line that all types of television watching people were important and if we could maintain some diaries for them anyway. In the end I said, sure why not.
The diaries arrived in the mail and the appointed week rolled around. I diligently filled them in.
[tv on - time], [tv off - time] channel watched - [none]
again and again it went.
In the notes at the end I reiterated that we have no, cable, satellite, over the air capability (even our internet isn't through the cable company). There were no channels, because we don't use our televisions in that way.
I sometimes wonder what they made of that info......
On the post: The Government Might Want To Legalize Phone Unlocking, But Unfortunately It Signed Away That Right
'temporary' solutions aren't a problem
"KORUS does allow for administrative procedures like the DMCA's rule-making to adopt temporary exemptions, but not permanent ones."
That shouldn't be a problem, thanks to the helpful example of the copyright maximalists.
All we need to do is to craft a solution that's _limited_ to infinity minus a day.
If the Supreme Court says that's good enough to keep copyright terms 'limited', it should be just fine for some ol' treaty.
On the post: SEC Still Way Behind The Times In Dealing With The Way People Communicate
Facebook not truely public
Facebook isn't exactly "public" if non-facebook members can't see it.
For example, I don't have a Facebook account....
On the post: AT&T Can Foist Its Data Plans On You, Whether You Use It Or Not
Re: Re: NO 'class lawsuit' for you sonny.....
The end result is the same, companies relying on the "AT&T vs Concepcion" decision effectively preempted class action lawsuits from their customers.
Personally I think that arbitration is a perfectly valid option between two companies that negotiate a contract between then, but they should be categorically forbidden in consumer contracts, especially contracts of adhesion.
On the post: AT&T Can Foist Its Data Plans On You, Whether You Use It Or Not
NO 'class lawsuit' for you sonny.....
California thought that was unconscionable, but the Supreme Court apparently found that to be just fine by them.
Shortly there after, company after company started adding the 'no class action lawsuits' language to their contracts. Most required you to mail (as in a piece of paper) to a physical address, on magic fairy paper to be delivered on a Feb. 29th that happened to fall on a Sunday, during a full moon (O.K. I made that last part up).
They 'notify you of the change' via email, phone call, click through, etc, but you can _only_ not accept via snail mail.
Remember contracts are only binding on __you__. The company gets to change the terms and condition at their sole discretion _without_ notice to you.
Welcome to the corporatocracy.
On the post: Homeland Security Spent $430-Million To Tune Its Radios To A New Frequency, And Failed
Re: Not the Way It Works
The failure of the government in the banking mess, wasn't too much regulation, but not enough. In that case more regulation, or simply getting back to the level that existed prior to the greed induced orgy of death and despair would probably be sufficient.
Brief history lesson;
Few and ineffective regulations of the financial sector coupled with greed and avarice leads to "Great Depression".
Regulations added by government and enforced (mostly) lead ,if not to prosperity, to reasonable stability in the financial markets.
Years pass, greed and avarice and corporate "free speech" (contributions) aided by misguided individuals and organizations who believe government regulation == bad cause the erosion of financial regulation.
When enough of the previously stabilizing regulations have been done away with, greed and avarice once more lead to the collapse of the financial markets, the "Great Recession". The only thing keeping it from sliding into another "Great Depression" is the liberal application of government (read tax payer) money.
The reckless businesses use tax payer money to give themselves large bonuses and try to screw the very taxpayers that "bailed" their businesses out with questionable foreclosures and creative fees.
Now when saner heads suggest that returning to a more effective level of government regulation of the financial markets, the same people that argued for deregulation point to the near collapse of the financial world as a reason why government regulation is bad. (wtf?!@#$!?)
In their mind;
Government regulation == bad.
Government bailout money == good.
We've nearly completed our transition from a Republic to a Corporatocricy. Government by the corporation for the corporation.
We socialize risk and privatize profit. Is it any wonder we now have a stagnant economy and the wealth distribution of a third world dictatorship?
Welcome to America, where socialism is "bad" (unless it benefits them) and companies make most of their money suing others with their _government_granted_ monopoly rights.....
Next >>