I recall reading a story not too long ago about a guy in his kitchen, late morning, making coffee, nude. A woman and her daughter cut across his yard and looked into his kitchen window (I imagine the curtains were either semi-transparent or drawn, like most kitchen curtains are).
Instead of the woman being arrested for trespassing, the man was arrested because she could see him naked, making coffee.
One would think that if you stumble downstairs after getting out of bed in the morning to make coffee, you should not have to be concerned that you could go to jail if someone peeps in your window and sees you are not wearing clothes.
A reasonable right to privacy is not as simple as it sounds. If someone can see you (even if they are viewing you from your own property, without your permission) the standards for being in public can apply.
An unsecured wi-fi signal that can be picked up by neighbors or even from the public road in front of your home are can't be expected to be more private. Suppose you have naked photos on your PC and a teenager finds them via your open network. You have now given pornography to a child the same as if you had printed the pictures and left them in a box sitting on the sidewalk.
Should the contents of that box be considered private?
I was really responding to the part at the end that says:
"Perhaps what actually "changed" was the fact that the FCC has become interested in AT&T blocking apps in anti-competitive ways.."
I don't believe controlling what apps you allow on your network is anti-competitive when the app developers are more than welcome to use one or more alternative networks.
Imagine if I own a bowling alley. I tell people they can only wear shoes rented from me. I tell people they can only use bowling balls from my alley. I tell people that they have roll the balls down the lane while wearing the shoes they rented from me.
My restrictions are my business decisions. Maybe people want to bring their own shoes or their own bowling ball. What should they do? Go to another alley.
What should they not do? Demand that the government require that I allow them to bring whatever equipment they want into my alley. Demand that they use that equipment however they want to in my alley, despite agreeing to abide by my rules when they came in.
While the government is at it, the neighboring alley demands that I put up advertisements in my alley and let them leave stacks of coupons on all the counters. It's not fair competitions otherwise. So now people use your alley however they want, wearing whatever shoes the want, rolling the balls all over the place.
Then people complain that my alley is too chaotic, they complain about the crappy shoes some guy over in the corner is renting out (not my shoes of course), and the quality of the lanes that are being abused. Luckily there are ads all over my alley for the guy across the street.
The government should not be making business decisions involving how I manage my alley. If I manage it poorly, or don't provide the services or freedoms they want, they do have the right to not use my alley.
Verizon and ATT are Nationwide. Most cities also have U.S. Cellular, Sprint, T-Mobile. Beyond that, there are more regional companies which provide even further choices.
When it comes to government involvement, be careful what you wish for. You may own a business one day, and the competition across the street may walk up with a court order for you to give him advertising space in your establishment.
If they want to offer the Pizza Hut app, but not allow apps from other Pizza companies, that should be their choice. It's their hardware. They should not be obligated to allow companies that compete with their services use their platform to advertise their business.
If you owned a pizza store, would you allow the competing pizza stores to come put up signs in your pizza store's window? Would it be appropriate for the government to tell you that you MUST let them put signs in your windows?
If Apple and ATT want to limit who can make apps for their product, so be it. It is only anti-competitive if they take measures to prevent those app makers from releasing their competitive products on other competing phones.
Nobody has a "right" to have their app published by Apple for use on Apple's hardware. If they choose not to accept an app, the developers can take their program to the Google phone, or develop their own platform and market against the iPhone.
If Apple and ATT want to give their partners preferential treatment, that should be their choice. They are not the only game in town.
Check out my comment above. Her actual complaint was about "nationwide" being false advertising since several major metro areas are not covered. Also she claims "unlimited" is also false advertising because they require her to pay extra for texting.
The judge denied a request to compel arbitration and stay litigation, which Metro states was agreed to as outlined in the terms of service. Her argument is that she was never provided with a Welcome Guide directing her to the terms of service or was made aware of any terms, and had not visited the website which detailed them.
There are several cases where the existence of valid Terms of Service are upheld on non-contract (pre-paid) service. These are noted in the article.
The difference in this case is the plaintiff convinced the judge she was not made aware of these terms.
The judged did not rule against the legality of the Terms of Service, but merely stated that it would not compel arbitration because there was not sufficient evidence in this specific case to prove she agreed to the terms.
Interestingly enough, the actual litigation concerns the plaintiff seeking damages and injunctive relief because Metro claims to provide unlimited nationwide coverage, but does not actually cover 11 of the top 25 U.S. major metropolitan areas. She also claims the unlimited coverage is false advertising because there are additional charges for texting features.
There is nothing precedent setting about the judge's decision in this case. The plaintiff simply proved to the judge she was not made aware of the terms of service (or more accurately, Metro had no evidence to dispute her claims that she was not given any information concerning the TOS).
Had Metro included at least a note referring to these terms on a signed receipt at the point of sale, this case would have most likely referred to already existing judgments and compelled arbitration of her original complaint.
I would be curious to see the outcome of the trial on that matter however.
Perhaps on a very literal term, there is a contract, meaning you as the customer agree to certain terms of use for the service (probably things considered abuse of the service, etc), these things are in place to ultimately protect the provider by defining their rights and your rights.
From a standard "marketing" viewpoint, a "contract" as it is used may imply there is nothing binding you to use and pay for the service for a stated amount of time.
Words have more than one meaning. When people think of "contract" with cell phones, they are thinking the latter. And as long as there is no termination fee, then I don't think it's really misleading.
I am pretty sure every cellular provider has terms of use for their services, and by using their service, you are agreeing to them. It doesn't sound like anything out of the ordinary nor unreasonable.
When did it become that the photographer does not own the photos he takes?
What about Google streets? Do they pay everyone who has their artwork photographed? I see a new business model:
1. paint pictures (Don't spend a lot of time on this step, since the quality of the art is not important, just make sure it's your own work)
2. display them on a public sidewalk and wait for the Google Van
3. Sue google for a few million, settle for 5 or 6 hundred thousand.
Consider this too, I've recently seen pictures of some artwork made from old tires. I'm sure the design of those tires belongs to someone. Should the tire companies sue? Sure the artist transformed them into something else, but a photograph is not a sculpture is it?
The entire idea that someone else can own the copyright on photos you take in public is absurd.
If a photograph of artwork viewed in public can be considered a violation of copyright, what about photos with cars in them. Photos with buildings in them? Photos of people wearing clothes and jewelry? If this had any merit whatsoever, I would think the majority of personal photos on the Internet would have to be taken down.
This would just leave pics of naked people in empty rooms. I'm ok with that.
From the article at Alphaville Herald:
citing a Typepad Terms of Service violation for "displaying copyrighted text and images without permission"
Admittedly I don't know a lot about Second Life, but usually the companies providing the virtual world own the copyright on all content rendered in said world. I can't take screenshots from WoW and put them on a t-shirt and sell them if Blizzard objects. Users don't own the content.
If entire articles of fan text are duplicated, certainly they can object to having them reprinted without permission, but I seriously doubt they have any say over in game images.
Of course, after reading some of the other articles from the same site, I'm left with the feeling that none of this is going to be precedent setting and is just part of the pile of inane activity generated by IP silliness.
It reminded me of elementary school kids putting together a "newspaper" about playtime and the juvenile arguments that go along with it.
If you ban bit-torrent, another method will come about. If you ban that method it will be replaced with another. If enough people want something, enough for it to be considered a problem worth trying to legislate control of, those people will find a way.
This is not specifically about the Internet, after all, prohibition didn't prevent people who wanted alcohol from getting alcohol.
These "crimes" are not perceived as harmful by the public at large, probably because we have not heard of one artist who is broke or living near poverty because some people share their music or movie.
Unless you can convince the people that what they are doing is harmful to others (or deadly to themselves, and even that is a stretch) you will not stop something by making new laws making "victims" out of people who are profiting nicely from their work.
Company A
Sells subscriptions
Has content which is based on other sources
Links to these sources for further information
Does not pay these sources for doing so
Company B
Sells subscriptions
Has content which is based on other sources
Links to these sources for further information
Does not pay these sources for doing so
On the surface these seem quite the same. However the sources of Company B, which compromise its content, are based on compiled content of Company A (in part). Once Company B links to Company A's content, there is no further work involved really, they rely on Company A to generate a regular stream.
Company A actively has to work at sifting through news stories to select its content. So although there is similarity in the general model, the process is distinctly different.
Although I can certainly see where a link to a story can be considered free PR, we must consider how many people only read the headlines and never follow those links.
If Company A would rather prevent Company B from using their work as a content stream, it shouldn't be an issue. Company A's sources are a myriad of individual events. Company B's source is Company A (among others).
Company A must consider, how much traffic do we receive from Company B (which they can know for certain) compared to the possible loss of traffic due to Company B. proividing headlines that are read without clickthru to Company A's content (which they cannot know for certain so must estimate based on factors of their choice).
Depending on Company A's research, it may or may not be a smart decision, but blocking Company B from piggy-backing on Company A's research is not hypocritical. Generally, Company A's sources would not be saying "don't report on us, we prefer to report on ourselves". However, Company B's sourceis basically saying this.
If Company A's content was based strictly on press releases sent to it by other companies, with no writers, editors, etc., that would be hypocritical. Simply linking to many others content streams is not the same as directly reporting on events.
"So hey, Mister, ya see we's cut off your Internet, and If you ever wanna see it again, your gonna have to pay us and we will let you ask us to turn it back on. Capiche?"
Although something as generic as "save the Earth" as a trademark is inane, why didn't they just say "save the planet"? Or has that been trademarked, too? How about: "save the 3rd generally large object in current orbit around our sun"?
It's amusing that nobody is allowed to save the Earth now unless they are authorized.
On the post: Leaving Your WiFi Open Decreases Your Fourth Amendment Rights To Privacy?
"reasonable" privacy
Instead of the woman being arrested for trespassing, the man was arrested because she could see him naked, making coffee.
One would think that if you stumble downstairs after getting out of bed in the morning to make coffee, you should not have to be concerned that you could go to jail if someone peeps in your window and sees you are not wearing clothes.
A reasonable right to privacy is not as simple as it sounds. If someone can see you (even if they are viewing you from your own property, without your permission) the standards for being in public can apply.
An unsecured wi-fi signal that can be picked up by neighbors or even from the public road in front of your home are can't be expected to be more private. Suppose you have naked photos on your PC and a teenager finds them via your open network. You have now given pornography to a child the same as if you had printed the pictures and left them in a box sitting on the sidewalk.
Should the contents of that box be considered private?
On the post: BioShock 2, Loaded Up With Annoying DRM That Pisses Off Fans, Cracked Immediately Anyway
No Worries for me
On the post: AT&T Claims Sling Made Changes To Get On The iPhone; Sling Has No Clue What AT&T Is Talking About
Re: Re: My Opinion
"Perhaps what actually "changed" was the fact that the FCC has become interested in AT&T blocking apps in anti-competitive ways.."
I don't believe controlling what apps you allow on your network is anti-competitive when the app developers are more than welcome to use one or more alternative networks.
On the post: AT&T Claims Sling Made Changes To Get On The iPhone; Sling Has No Clue What AT&T Is Talking About
Re: Re: Re: Re: My Opinion
My restrictions are my business decisions. Maybe people want to bring their own shoes or their own bowling ball. What should they do? Go to another alley.
What should they not do? Demand that the government require that I allow them to bring whatever equipment they want into my alley. Demand that they use that equipment however they want to in my alley, despite agreeing to abide by my rules when they came in.
While the government is at it, the neighboring alley demands that I put up advertisements in my alley and let them leave stacks of coupons on all the counters. It's not fair competitions otherwise. So now people use your alley however they want, wearing whatever shoes the want, rolling the balls all over the place.
Then people complain that my alley is too chaotic, they complain about the crappy shoes some guy over in the corner is renting out (not my shoes of course), and the quality of the lanes that are being abused. Luckily there are ads all over my alley for the guy across the street.
The government should not be making business decisions involving how I manage my alley. If I manage it poorly, or don't provide the services or freedoms they want, they do have the right to not use my alley.
Verizon and ATT are Nationwide. Most cities also have U.S. Cellular, Sprint, T-Mobile. Beyond that, there are more regional companies which provide even further choices.
When it comes to government involvement, be careful what you wish for. You may own a business one day, and the competition across the street may walk up with a court order for you to give him advertising space in your establishment.
On the post: AT&T Claims Sling Made Changes To Get On The iPhone; Sling Has No Clue What AT&T Is Talking About
Re: Re: My Opinion
If you owned a pizza store, would you allow the competing pizza stores to come put up signs in your pizza store's window? Would it be appropriate for the government to tell you that you MUST let them put signs in your windows?
On the post: AT&T Claims Sling Made Changes To Get On The iPhone; Sling Has No Clue What AT&T Is Talking About
My Opinion
Nobody has a "right" to have their app published by Apple for use on Apple's hardware. If they choose not to accept an app, the developers can take their program to the Google phone, or develop their own platform and market against the iPhone.
If Apple and ATT want to give their partners preferential treatment, that should be their choice. They are not the only game in town.
On the post: Court Disagrees On Whether Or Not Schools Can Punish Students Over Fake Social Network Pages
Not to sound like an old Codger
When did it change that the talkers are not to blame but rather the ones they were talking about?
If this ruling were to actually have any validity, students could simply talk about another student and get that student disciplined.
The school's actions are not justified. The court's ruling is unconstitutional in the latter case.
On the post: Because When MetroPCS Says 'No Contract,' It Actually Means 'Well, Of Course There's A Contract'
Re: Contract vs. Terms of Service
On the post: Because When MetroPCS Says 'No Contract,' It Actually Means 'Well, Of Course There's A Contract'
Another question
There are several cases where the existence of valid Terms of Service are upheld on non-contract (pre-paid) service. These are noted in the article.
The difference in this case is the plaintiff convinced the judge she was not made aware of these terms.
The judged did not rule against the legality of the Terms of Service, but merely stated that it would not compel arbitration because there was not sufficient evidence in this specific case to prove she agreed to the terms.
Interestingly enough, the actual litigation concerns the plaintiff seeking damages and injunctive relief because Metro claims to provide unlimited nationwide coverage, but does not actually cover 11 of the top 25 U.S. major metropolitan areas. She also claims the unlimited coverage is false advertising because there are additional charges for texting features.
There is nothing precedent setting about the judge's decision in this case. The plaintiff simply proved to the judge she was not made aware of the terms of service (or more accurately, Metro had no evidence to dispute her claims that she was not given any information concerning the TOS).
Had Metro included at least a note referring to these terms on a signed receipt at the point of sale, this case would have most likely referred to already existing judgments and compelled arbitration of her original complaint.
I would be curious to see the outcome of the trial on that matter however.
On the post: Because When MetroPCS Says 'No Contract,' It Actually Means 'Well, Of Course There's A Contract'
Consider this
From a standard "marketing" viewpoint, a "contract" as it is used may imply there is nothing binding you to use and pay for the service for a stated amount of time.
Words have more than one meaning. When people think of "contract" with cell phones, they are thinking the latter. And as long as there is no termination fee, then I don't think it's really misleading.
I am pretty sure every cellular provider has terms of use for their services, and by using their service, you are agreeing to them. It doesn't sound like anything out of the ordinary nor unreasonable.
On the post: Artist Sues Photographer For Transformative Photo Of Public Artwork, Even Though Photographer Took Down The Photo
What about Google streets? Do they pay everyone who has their artwork photographed? I see a new business model:
1. paint pictures (Don't spend a lot of time on this step, since the quality of the art is not important, just make sure it's your own work)
2. display them on a public sidewalk and wait for the Google Van
3. Sue google for a few million, settle for 5 or 6 hundred thousand.
Consider this too, I've recently seen pictures of some artwork made from old tires. I'm sure the design of those tires belongs to someone. Should the tire companies sue? Sure the artist transformed them into something else, but a photograph is not a sculpture is it?
The entire idea that someone else can own the copyright on photos you take in public is absurd.
On the post: Artist Sues Photographer For Transformative Photo Of Public Artwork, Even Though Photographer Took Down The Photo
Just thinking
This would just leave pics of naked people in empty rooms. I'm ok with that.
On the post: Second Life Gang Using Copyright To Stop Discussion Of Its Tactics?
I'm just curious
On the post: Merriam Webster Dictionary Pulled From Elementary School For Defining Oral Sex; Guess What All The Students Just Found Out About?
Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
The Truth is
This is not specifically about the Internet, after all, prohibition didn't prevent people who wanted alcohol from getting alcohol.
These "crimes" are not perceived as harmful by the public at large, probably because we have not heard of one artist who is broke or living near poverty because some people share their music or movie.
Unless you can convince the people that what they are doing is harmful to others (or deadly to themselves, and even that is a stretch) you will not stop something by making new laws making "victims" out of people who are profiting nicely from their work.
On the post: Daily Mirror Blocks NewsNow; Will It Start Paying Its Own Sources?
The Way I See It
Sells subscriptions
Has content which is based on other sources
Links to these sources for further information
Does not pay these sources for doing so
Company B
Sells subscriptions
Has content which is based on other sources
Links to these sources for further information
Does not pay these sources for doing so
On the surface these seem quite the same. However the sources of Company B, which compromise its content, are based on compiled content of Company A (in part). Once Company B links to Company A's content, there is no further work involved really, they rely on Company A to generate a regular stream.
Company A actively has to work at sifting through news stories to select its content. So although there is similarity in the general model, the process is distinctly different.
Although I can certainly see where a link to a story can be considered free PR, we must consider how many people only read the headlines and never follow those links.
If Company A would rather prevent Company B from using their work as a content stream, it shouldn't be an issue. Company A's sources are a myriad of individual events. Company B's source is Company A (among others).
Company A must consider, how much traffic do we receive from Company B (which they can know for certain) compared to the possible loss of traffic due to Company B. proividing headlines that are read without clickthru to Company A's content (which they cannot know for certain so must estimate based on factors of their choice).
Depending on Company A's research, it may or may not be a smart decision, but blocking Company B from piggy-backing on Company A's research is not hypocritical. Generally, Company A's sources would not be saying "don't report on us, we prefer to report on ourselves". However, Company B's sourceis basically saying this.
If Company A's content was based strictly on press releases sent to it by other companies, with no writers, editors, etc., that would be hypocritical. Simply linking to many others content streams is not the same as directly reporting on events.
On the post: Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal
A "new" business model?
"So hey, Mister, ya see we's cut off your Internet, and If you ever wanna see it again, your gonna have to pay us and we will let you ask us to turn it back on. Capiche?"
On the post: Honda Sued For Trademark Infringement For Suggesting It Wants To Save The Earth
Re: Re:
On the post: Honda Sued For Trademark Infringement For Suggesting It Wants To Save The Earth
It's amusing that nobody is allowed to save the Earth now unless they are authorized.
On the post: No, The Apple Tablet Won't Save Publishing Nor Will It End 'Free'
http://oldcomputers.net/apple-newton.html
Next >>