We are witnessing the emergence of Corporatism as our economic and legal system. The government one could say is being reduced to a corporate subsidiary. A government of, by, and for the corporations.
As part of this process, we are witnessing the end of due process. Look at what what Amazon.com did when it unilaterally and without permission removed Orwell books from the Kindle.
Through the use of TOSs and EULAs, I will even conjecture that corporations are now making "law" a privilege that used to be reserved to the government. I have seem some posts on other forums referring to violations of TOSs or EULAs as being illegal activities. It used to be that when you violated a contract it was a civil matter, now it seems to increasingly beccoming a legal matter that could result in a criminal conviction.
Of course virtually every TOS and EULA seems to diminish the purchasers rights and enhance those of the seller - the ultimate insult of these so-called contracts is that they are contracts of adhesion that can be changed at will be the seller and where the purchaser is deprived of any right to even negotiate the terms.
While each article may deal with a specific issue, I think that Mike may have overlooked a bigger issue -> consumer activism.
Companies routinely form "associations", hire lobbyists, and employee public relation firms to promote a glowing images and to entice consumers to buy.
The problem of course, is that when the consumer gets ripped-off, how do they fight back? The internet provides one such opportunity.
Unfortunately, as noted by various TechDirt posts, companies seek to squash bad publicity. Companies even seem to believe that it would be appropriate for them to "buy" such laws from our politicians.
Given that mentality, so much for the free-market and freedom of speech.
Of course once something is printed these days, its virtually available forever.
On the issue of suppressing content; I have seen some ads proclaiming that they will diligently search the internet to "protect" your name, reputation, social security number, etc. These types of ads would seem to be nothing more than a scam.
But, I have been wondering, exactly how do they propose to "clean" or otherwise remove content from a website to achieve their claims?
AC: Wrote "And "most" people understand that it's wrong to get something of value without compensating its rightful owner."The problem is that the content industry is claiming ownership privileges out of thin air. For example, if I take a paper book to Europe, I can still read it. I take a DVD to Europe, I can't play it because of regional encoding. I assert that it is the content industry that is doing the "stealing".
Unfortunately, the content industry can hire the lawyers and public relations people to create the image in the public's mind that it is the public doing the "stealing" based on a property right made out of thin air. Content producers should not have the ability to "make law".
In the old days once a product was in the possession of the buyer, there was little that the seller could do. With modern day electronic devices the seller has a degree of CONTROL over what is supposed to be your device. Witness Amazon.com's Kindle and the Sony Playstation. The seller can now reach into your electronic device at will and do whatever mischief they desire.
The big issue, in terms of our legal process - Why should the seller (out of thin air) be able to claim that they have a right to trespass onto your equipment? Just because a new technology becomes available it should not entitle the seller to claim some new right that deprives the consumer of their rights.
Jason you make a point that is overlooked in this whole copyright as property debate. You wrote: "Personally I think items like software and music files are infinite goods and thus should not carry much value." The usual argument is that a property right evolves out of scarcity. If there is no scarcity then the property right should vaporize.
However, I disagree with: "How do you make anything off software if your business model is sell it once, and then let the world use it for free." The answer is you need to adapt, not use the power of the State to create a special right for the content producer that deprives the consumer of their rights. The creator of a product is NOT entitled to a profit, he/she needs to come-up with an approach that will allow them to make money. Oh, by the way, there is nothing wrong with creating products were you don't expect to make money.
If a company chooses to sell a product; that for a variety of reasons will not pay for itself, don't sell the product.
The assertion that companies are entitled to deprive buyer of their rights to a product in order to cover R&D costs is absurd. When someone buys a product they acquire a property right to that product, which includes the ability to re-sell it. (I also do not subscribe to the notion that legal gimmicks, such as licensing, EULA, or TOS can deprive the buyer of their rights.)
Fundamentally, if we live in a free-market system, companies should not be able to employ the power of the State to recover their R&D costs. Can't make money. Your marketing research was defective. Too bad, you loose.
Also there is a recent Analog story that where the story line is based on a computer that "reads" current events to suggest government policy based on those events.
Where is Campus Security When it Comes to the "Left" Wing
The issue in this case concerns the forced removal of posters by the administration for somehow being "inappropriate". By extension, I have often wondered why Universities seem to let the "left" shout-down or otherwise disrupt speakers form the "right". Seems that University administrators are a little bit short on comprehending the concept of free speech.
May soon be illegal to remove/disable these devices. There have been rumors and occasional stories to the effect that GPS devices will be required to tax you based on the miles driven.
Also see this article: "Feds to require black box event recorders in all new cars". The article writes: "This sounds like a sensible idea, as long as strict limits are places on what data is recorded, and who has access to it. The potential for abuse is huge, such as cops using it to issue speeding tickets, or GPS data being used in a divorce case to show who you were visiting. Still, the upside could be pretty significant too, for example proving that you weren't speeding when you had an accident."
Beyond the Tracking - "Home" can control your device
For some reason this OnStar story raised the issue that we are "losing" control over our electronic devices since they are connected to "home". Think PlayStation and Kindle.
Along with so-called "intellectual property", we need to be very concerned with the ability of "home" to manipulate your electronic devices, which me even rat on you.
"There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We can reduce the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits."
The ability to patent One-Click and the subsequent hissey-fight exposes the issue that patent holders seem to believe that when they receive a patent that it excludes others from having alternative implementation strategies.
Some guy cheats on his wife and the wife calls OnStar.
Some social reprehensible person commits heinous crimes that could have been prevented if OnStar disclosed the locational information. The newspapers will have a field day.
Someone installs a Ford product in a GM car. It immediately ceases to operate for some unknown reason.
"The America Invents Act will benefit tax payers directly by prohibiting patents on tax strategies, which often lead to additional fees on taxpayers who are simply complying with the tax laws." Why not ban patents for similar strategies such as business plans?
Simply another piece of legislation disingenuously tweaked by the Congress/lobbyists to toss-out a microscopic crumb to the general public.
The September 26, 2011 issue of Forbes has a good article that validates that we are going down the wrong path with patent reform. Seems that Forbes has not yet put this article-up on their website, so I am unable to provide a link: "Outsourced Forever" by Stephen Denning.
Mr. Denning writes that the Kindle can't be made in the US because we have lost our ability to manufacturer a lot of the Kindle's components. But he goes further, once we lose the ability to design and construct the equipment need to produce the Kindle, the engineers and scientists will leave the US and go to those countries. Brain drain.
Mr. Denning coincidentally reiterates, Mike's thesis. Mr. Denning states that "Developed economies and their companies will always lose out to the emerging economies and their companies if the battle is to be fought on the basis of lowering costs, which is where traditional management tries to compete.". So as Mike noted, the "... and you can tell that's true by the fact that no actual tech company appeared with the President at the signing. Instead, it was chemical and pharma companies -- old school legacy industries that are trying to "protect" old businesses, not innovate with the new."
Give it a few years, and continued patent protection will come back and haunt us since all the patents will be held by the innovative companies overseas. We will be paying them dearly in the form of licensing fees. Be careful of what you ask for in term of protection.
As you watch the machinations and posturing of our politicians it is all about the appearance of doing something. The fact that the "something" is nothing more than smoke-and-mirrors is inconsequential. Our politicians continue to simply kick-the-can down the road and claim that they have successfully made the tough decisions for which we should be grateful. Disgusting.
The Bart decision to shut down mobile phone service is yet another incremental example of how government and the private sector increasingly believe that they can capriciously and unilaterally implement whatever action they deem appropriate in the name of (fill in the blank). Due process is becoming "old school".
On the post: Different Treatment For Tech Related Law-Breaking Depending On Whether Or Not You Have Power
Corporatism
As part of this process, we are witnessing the end of due process. Look at what what Amazon.com did when it unilaterally and without permission removed Orwell books from the Kindle.
Through the use of TOSs and EULAs, I will even conjecture that corporations are now making "law" a privilege that used to be reserved to the government. I have seem some posts on other forums referring to violations of TOSs or EULAs as being illegal activities. It used to be that when you violated a contract it was a civil matter, now it seems to increasingly beccoming a legal matter that could result in a criminal conviction.
Of course virtually every TOS and EULA seems to diminish the purchasers rights and enhance those of the seller - the ultimate insult of these so-called contracts is that they are contracts of adhesion that can be changed at will be the seller and where the purchaser is deprived of any right to even negotiate the terms.
On the post: Should We Pass A Law To Stop Yelp From Harming Chain Restaurants?
There Ought to be A Law
Companies routinely form "associations", hire lobbyists, and employee public relation firms to promote a glowing images and to entice consumers to buy.
The problem of course, is that when the consumer gets ripped-off, how do they fight back? The internet provides one such opportunity.
Unfortunately, as noted by various TechDirt posts, companies seek to squash bad publicity. Companies even seem to believe that it would be appropriate for them to "buy" such laws from our politicians.
Given that mentality, so much for the free-market and freedom of speech.
On the post: One Way To Boost Newspaper Sales? Write A Story That Someone Will Try To Hide By Buying Up All The Copies
Legitimate Free-Market Solution
On the issue of suppressing content; I have seen some ads proclaiming that they will diligently search the internet to "protect" your name, reputation, social security number, etc. These types of ads would seem to be nothing more than a scam.
But, I have been wondering, exactly how do they propose to "clean" or otherwise remove content from a website to achieve their claims?
On the post: France Continues Mass Processing Of Infringement Accusations: 60 People Get Third Strike Notice... 650,000 Get First Strike
Who Establishes Ownerhip?
Unfortunately, the content industry can hire the lawyers and public relations people to create the image in the public's mind that it is the public doing the "stealing" based on a property right made out of thin air. Content producers should not have the ability to "make law".
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Saying That You Have No First Sale Rights With Software
Product Control
The big issue, in terms of our legal process - Why should the seller (out of thin air) be able to claim that they have a right to trespass onto your equipment? Just because a new technology becomes available it should not entitle the seller to claim some new right that deprives the consumer of their rights.
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Saying That You Have No First Sale Rights With Software
Re: Re: Re:
However, I disagree with: "How do you make anything off software if your business model is sell it once, and then let the world use it for free." The answer is you need to adapt, not use the power of the State to create a special right for the content producer that deprives the consumer of their rights. The creator of a product is NOT entitled to a profit, he/she needs to come-up with an approach that will allow them to make money. Oh, by the way, there is nothing wrong with creating products were you don't expect to make money.
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Saying That You Have No First Sale Rights With Software
Don't Sell the Product if You Can't Make Money
The assertion that companies are entitled to deprive buyer of their rights to a product in order to cover R&D costs is absurd. When someone buys a product they acquire a property right to that product, which includes the ability to re-sell it. (I also do not subscribe to the notion that legal gimmicks, such as licensing, EULA, or TOS can deprive the buyer of their rights.)
Fundamentally, if we live in a free-market system, companies should not be able to employ the power of the State to recover their R&D costs. Can't make money. Your marketing research was defective. Too bad, you loose.
On the post: Could Computers Predict Political Unrest Like They Predict The Weather?
Asimov's Foundation Stories
Also there is a recent Analog story that where the story line is based on a computer that "reads" current events to suggest government policy based on those events.
On the post: University Police & Administration Freak Out Over Nathan Fillion Firefly Poster; Censor, Threaten Professor
Where is Campus Security When it Comes to the "Left" Wing
On the post: OnStar Drops Plan To Monitor Non-Subscribers
Re: Re: It doesn't matter
Also see this article: "Feds to require black box event recorders in all new cars". The article writes: "This sounds like a sensible idea, as long as strict limits are places on what data is recorded, and who has access to it. The potential for abuse is huge, such as cops using it to issue speeding tickets, or GPS data being used in a divorce case to show who you were visiting. Still, the upside could be pretty significant too, for example proving that you weren't speeding when you had an accident."
On the post: OnStar Drops Plan To Monitor Non-Subscribers
Beyond the Tracking - "Home" can control your device
Along with so-called "intellectual property", we need to be very concerned with the ability of "home" to manipulate your electronic devices, which me even rat on you.
I also remember this from the TV Show "Outer Limits"
"There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We can reduce the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits."
Quote from IMDB
On the post: Is Creating The Same Software Feature Copyright Infringement?
Reverse Engineering a Dead Concept?
On the post: Once Again, Amazon's One-Click Patent Is Found Not To Infringe On Cordance's One-Click Patents
Concepts Should be Unpatentable
On the post: Even If You Cancel Your OnStar Service, The Company Will Still Track (And Sell) Your Location
Lawyers Delight
Some guy cheats on his wife and the wife calls OnStar.
Some social reprehensible person commits heinous crimes that could have been prevented if OnStar disclosed the locational information. The newspapers will have a field day.
Someone installs a Ford product in a GM car. It immediately ceases to operate for some unknown reason.
On the post: Patent Reform Official, Along With More Bad Ideas
Bans Tax Patents - Overlooks Business Plans in General
"The America Invents Act will benefit tax payers directly by prohibiting patents on tax strategies, which often lead to additional fees on taxpayers who are simply complying with the tax laws." Why not ban patents for similar strategies such as business plans?
Simply another piece of legislation disingenuously tweaked by the Congress/lobbyists to toss-out a microscopic crumb to the general public.
On the post: Harlan Ellison Sues Again; Because No One Could Have Possibly Came Up With The Same SciFi Ideas As He Did
Great Stories
On the post: Patent Reform Official, Along With More Bad Ideas
Outsourced Forever
Mr. Denning writes that the Kindle can't be made in the US because we have lost our ability to manufacturer a lot of the Kindle's components. But he goes further, once we lose the ability to design and construct the equipment need to produce the Kindle, the engineers and scientists will leave the US and go to those countries. Brain drain.
Mr. Denning coincidentally reiterates, Mike's thesis. Mr. Denning states that "Developed economies and their companies will always lose out to the emerging economies and their companies if the battle is to be fought on the basis of lowering costs, which is where traditional management tries to compete.". So as Mike noted, the "... and you can tell that's true by the fact that no actual tech company appeared with the President at the signing. Instead, it was chemical and pharma companies -- old school legacy industries that are trying to "protect" old businesses, not innovate with the new."
Give it a few years, and continued patent protection will come back and haunt us since all the patents will be held by the innovative companies overseas. We will be paying them dearly in the form of licensing fees. Be careful of what you ask for in term of protection.
On the post: Congress Moves Forward With Useless Patent Reform That Won't Fix Any Real Problems
Appearance Over Substance
On the post: Swedish Teenager Turned Over To Police By School Headmaster For File Sharing Acquitted By Court
Re: Swedish Courts
On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal
Due Process Slipping Away
Next >>