"I think the funniest part of all of this is that the balance is out of whack now, heavily in favor of the consumer, because the consumer has chosen to ignore the law entirely."
When a law no longer serves a legitimate societal purpose it is ignored. This is especially true of so-called "laws" that deprive the consumer of a legitimate use but at the same gives someone else an unfair advantage. The law should provide a level playing field, not serve a special interest.
The current state of laws related to so-called "intellectual property" make a mockery of the law.
The concept of "balance" neglects the role of time. Copyright, over time, has become more onerous; it was meant to provide a limited monopoly for a limited period of time. To achieve "balance" the copyright has been extended in scope and time.
Furthermore, we see copyright holders extending their reach to assert ownership on content placed on new forms of media. There is no attempt by the content holders to even offer "balance".
Balance may be a wonderful concept, but the fulcrum point is movable by those defining "balance". Unfortunately, we don't have balance in setting the fulcrum point. Seems that the content holders have that power, unfortunately.
The DVD bargain bin at stores (such as Walmart) is another "proof" that the value of content rapidly declines. It would be interesting to see a graph of the price decline of a DVD over time.
This illustrates a "friction" in the free-market that many people dismiss. The typical assertion is that when a company does not treat the consumer well, people will move to a another product offering the same features and the offending company will go out of business.
Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. The consumer's ability to "force" market reform at the individual level is virtually non-existent. Fortunately, websites such as TechDirt can expose these outrages to the world and prod reform.
A tired mantra. Why should we trust the ISPs? Freedom, in many respects has degenerated in our societ as a license to steal. Like a welfare society - the ISPs mantra boils down we have rights and entitlements but no obligations or responsibilities. A civil society can not operate on those premises.
Yes, there are serious issues with regulated net-work neutrality. There isn't a regulation that can't be circumvented.
What seems to be consistently missing in this whole debate is an offer by those who will be benefiting from regulatory freedom is an actual guarantee of net neutrality. There is nothing stopping them from implementing net-neutrality. They are free to choose.
The SyFy Channel, a unit of NBC/Universal, routinely cancels the good stuff without even providing a reasonable notice, but continues to finds ways to generate horrendously bad programming. How pitiful, prime time wrestling on a channel supposedly dedicated to Science Fiction!!!
Nothing wrong with becoming rich, but there is an economic issue that has been ignored concerning those with extreme wealth. Can they effectively re-invest it?
People can only juggle so many things. At a certain point you exceed your "span of control" and things "fall apart". For that reason the mega rich may have difficulty allocating investment money towards valid entrepreneurial ventures. Furthermore, since the mega rich have more money than they can reasonably use, they may have little incentive to truly seek our entrepreneurial opportunities. The money then languishes and so does innovation.
"This is probably a TOS violation, but that justifies a loss of service, not jail time, large fine, and loss of computer equipment." Private industry seems to have convinced the government that when a customer "violates" a TOS that it is a criminal offense. As a society, we seem to have lost the concept of two parties negotiating the terms of service for a civil business deal. It has become, "Take what I give you. Should I not like what you do, off to jail. You have no rights."
This raises a very serious concern with those who advocate privatizing the spectrum. The most obvious being radio signals just don't stop at the property line.
The most egregious, aspect would our currently free wireless routes now have to be "licensed" for which we would pay a fee?
Taken to a logical extreme, should the radio spectrum be privatized, those who "own" it should be forced to pay a rental/fine for allowing their radio signal to trespass on my property.
Innovation is based on making incremental improvements to products. However, patents today seem to be focused, not on the product itself, but on the "concept". Consequently, if concepts can be patented, an entrepreneur making a product enhancement would never get a patent. He would be sued for patent infringement.
This has a chilling effect on innovation and technological progress.
Re: NASA is a mirror of the US in general - never quite able to get there.
The first space shuttle launch was in 1981. Obviously the technology used back then based on that in the 1970s. What is sad, is that we have not replaced the space shuttle with a new model. How many of us still drive a 1980 vintage car?
But as Darryl points out, the failure to advance our space program: "It's symtomatic of the USA in general, lots of big idea's and plans, but not so hot on execution."
The last scheduled space shuttle flight will be in June 2011. We have no replacement shuttle. Seems that we will have to rent from the Russians should we need to undertake any manned missions.
All Connectors and Similar Devices Should be Standard
There are times when the "free-market" fails us. It amazes me that the "free-market" can amazingly come together in the spirit of cooperation to produce a universal DRM for DVDs but then can't seem to get its act together for screws and power cords!
Regretfully, this seems to be a case of necessary government regulation. The use of proprietary screws, power cords, and connectors hurts both the economy and the individual.
I would never have answered. We unfortunately live in a society were intrusive misleading marketing is considered a constitutionally protected right. Besides the lack of self-restraint, those selling products don't seem to think that fraudulent behavior is wrong. They have lost their moral compass. Those selling should begin to exhibit some self restraint and honesty.
Lets extend this concept a bit further "Public officials, when acting in a public capacity, do not and should not have any expectation of privacy."
Everywhere we go, we are now virtually recorded. These recordings can be used by those making it for whatever purpose they see fit. Given our surveillance society, why shouldn't a private citizen be able to use any recording device that they have available to document their side?
To paraphrase Chris Rhodes comment"The laws that we had created to protect the public from abusive government practices are now being revised to protect the government by prohibiting the public from having access to the facts to defend themselves.. So much for personal freedom in our evolving police state.
"Many online marketing companies use "affiliates" to do their dirty work,..." The use of "affiliates" and "Partners" is a major scam in-itself.
Recently we received letters printed on university stationary signed by a university administrators that were nothing more than sales brochures. It is not an appropriate activity for our educational institutions. While not as egregious as spam, those in marketing seem to lack any moral restraint in separating you from your money. Dilbert Cartoon
What happened to civil and rationale discussion for resolving differences of opinions? Given good rationale logic those who have crossed the invisible line of appropriate social behavior will agree to reform! After all everyone benefits through peaceful enlightened coexistence. (Don't believe a word of what I just wrote.)
Seemingly not illegal, a deal between two companies to limit product to customers would be inconsistent with free market principles. Yes you can have exclusive contracts, such as a manufacturer selling to a specific retailer. Nevertheless, to have two companies collude to to restrict the sale of a product is excessive. Free markets are about competition, not collusion.
When companies collude to set prices, that is considered illegal. Colluding to restrict sales, may have crossed the imaginary line-in-the-sand into illegality.
The fact that Wikileaks and Issa's whistle-blower websites may be doing the same thing is irrelevant to politicians. Wikileaks is "bad" because there is political advantage for Issa to wrap himself in the flag as a loud demonstration of "patriotism".
Now if the very same Wikileak documents had been submitted to Issa's "good" whistle-blower website, Issa would be holding camera packed Congressional hearings on how our various intelligence agencies were incompetent in protecting American secrets.
"He was careful to travel with no computers or gadgets whatsoever, other than some USB keys with encrypted versions of the Bill of Rights. Well did Customs figure out what he was carrying?
Really you don't need computers or even a USB device to transport data that could be highly sensitive. There are many ways to "hide" data on your person, assuming that you have to go this route. Encrypted emails would be a more efficient route since it would bypass Customs ability to intercept.
Re: Re: What part of the constitution prevents laws that limit permitted uses of property?
Besides the obvious issue of a "sold" product becoming the property of the buyer, is the issue of post-sale control. Companies, such as Sony should have no ability to define how you use a product after you bought it.
Imagine if you buy a Ford automobile and they say that you can't install a Chevy engine in it. They find out you did it and then figuratively destroy your car!!! (Kindle removed retroactively what they claimed post-sale as unauthorized content.)
On the post: Smashing The Scales: Not Everything Needs 'Balance'
Laws Should NOT Protect Business Models
When a law no longer serves a legitimate societal purpose it is ignored. This is especially true of so-called "laws" that deprive the consumer of a legitimate use but at the same gives someone else an unfair advantage. The law should provide a level playing field, not serve a special interest.
The current state of laws related to so-called "intellectual property" make a mockery of the law.
On the post: Smashing The Scales: Not Everything Needs 'Balance'
Time
Furthermore, we see copyright holders extending their reach to assert ownership on content placed on new forms of media. There is no attempt by the content holders to even offer "balance".
Balance may be a wonderful concept, but the fulcrum point is movable by those defining "balance". Unfortunately, we don't have balance in setting the fulcrum point. Seems that the content holders have that power, unfortunately.
On the post: If Artists Don't Value Copyright On Their Works, Why Do We Force It On Them?
The Bargain Bin
On the post: If You Don't Offer Legit Versions, Is It That Big A Surprise That People Want Unauthorized Copies?
The Individual Consumer is Irrelevant
Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. The consumer's ability to "force" market reform at the individual level is virtually non-existent. Fortunately, websites such as TechDirt can expose these outrages to the world and prod reform.
On the post: EFF Warns That FCC Net Neutrality Rules Are A Bad, Bad Idea
Trust Me, We Don't Need Regulation
Yes, there are serious issues with regulated net-work neutrality. There isn't a regulation that can't be circumvented.
What seems to be consistently missing in this whole debate is an offer by those who will be benefiting from regulatory freedom is an actual guarantee of net neutrality. There is nothing stopping them from implementing net-neutrality. They are free to choose.
On the post: NBC Fires Guy Who Posted The Bryant Gumbel/Katie Couric 'What Is Internet' Video
The SyFy Channel Demonstrates That This Normal
On the post: Entrepreneurs Who Create Value vs. Entrepreneurs Who Lock Up Value
Effective Deployment of Capital
People can only juggle so many things. At a certain point you exceed your "span of control" and things "fall apart". For that reason the mega rich may have difficulty allocating investment money towards valid entrepreneurial ventures. Furthermore, since the mega rich have more money than they can reasonably use, they may have little incentive to truly seek our entrepreneurial opportunities. The money then languishes and so does innovation.
On the post: Brazilian Telecom Authority Claims Sharing WiFi Is A Criminal Offense
Re: Re:
On the post: Brazilian Telecom Authority Claims Sharing WiFi Is A Criminal Offense
Re: Re:
The most egregious, aspect would our currently free wireless routes now have to be "licensed" for which we would pay a fee?
Taken to a logical extreme, should the radio spectrum be privatized, those who "own" it should be forced to pay a rental/fine for allowing their radio signal to trespass on my property.
On the post: No, Giving More Patents To Startups Won't Increase Innovation
How Can Getting Patents Be Made Easier?
This has a chilling effect on innovation and technological progress.
On the post: Twenty-Five Years Since The Challenger Explosion
Re: NASA is a mirror of the US in general - never quite able to get there.
But as Darryl points out, the failure to advance our space program: "It's symtomatic of the USA in general, lots of big idea's and plans, but not so hot on execution."
The last scheduled space shuttle flight will be in June 2011. We have no replacement shuttle. Seems that we will have to rent from the Russians should we need to undertake any manned missions.
On the post: Apple Using Special New Screws So You Can't Open Your iPhone
All Connectors and Similar Devices Should be Standard
Regretfully, this seems to be a case of necessary government regulation. The use of proprietary screws, power cords, and connectors hurts both the economy and the individual.
On the post: Winner Of $10k From Apple Hung Up, Assuming It Was A Prank Call Or A Sales Call
The Sad State of Marketing
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press
Everywhere we go, we are now virtually recorded. These recordings can be used by those making it for whatever purpose they see fit. Given our surveillance society, why shouldn't a private citizen be able to use any recording device that they have available to document their side?
To paraphrase Chris Rhodes comment"The laws that we had created to protect the public from abusive government practices are now being revised to protect the government by prohibiting the public from having access to the facts to defend themselves.. So much for personal freedom in our evolving police state.
On the post: California Appeals Court Says Company Can Be Held Liable For Spam It Didn't Write Or Know About
Re: Re: I don't see this as a problem.
Recently we received letters printed on university stationary signed by a university administrators that were nothing more than sales brochures. It is not an appropriate activity for our educational institutions. While not as egregious as spam, those in marketing seem to lack any moral restraint in separating you from your money. Dilbert Cartoon
On the post: California Appeals Court Says Company Can Be Held Liable For Spam It Didn't Write Or Know About
Re: Civil Discourse
On the post: Redbox Realizing That Caving To Hollywood On 28-Day Delay Was A Bad Idea
Restraint of Trade?
When companies collude to set prices, that is considered illegal. Colluding to restrict sales, may have crossed the imaginary line-in-the-sand into illegality.
On the post: Rep. Darrell Issa -- Who Says Investigating Wikileaks Is A Priority -- Sets Up His Own Whistleblower Site
Political Shownanship
Now if the very same Wikileak documents had been submitted to Issa's "good" whistle-blower website, Issa would be holding camera packed Congressional hearings on how our various intelligence agencies were incompetent in protecting American secrets.
On the post: Customs' Hamfisted Attempts To Intimidate Wikileaks Volunteers
Really you don't need computers or even a USB device to transport data that could be highly sensitive. There are many ways to "hide" data on your person, assuming that you have to go this route. Encrypted emails would be a more efficient route since it would bypass Customs ability to intercept.
On the post: Sony Gets Restraining Order Against Guy Who Restored PS3 Feature Sony Deleted
Re: Re: What part of the constitution prevents laws that limit permitted uses of property?
Imagine if you buy a Ford automobile and they say that you can't install a Chevy engine in it. They find out you did it and then figuratively destroy your car!!! (Kindle removed retroactively what they claimed post-sale as unauthorized content.)
Next >>