Heh heh, 21st is it? Well, I was just guessing :) At some point you have to decide to go out and do some real work. That didn't come until after the 25th for me. Of course you can't forget the old aphorism "Every day's a school day", so maybe some of us are still at it.
I do think there's plenty to learn by paying attention to the conversations around here.
No demonizing here AJ. That's just the way the capitalist system works (and should work). Understanding, or even guessing at, the incentives of other interested parties is an inherent part of the equation when ideas are being tossed around. BTW, I believe you do it to Mike all the time... and have even done it in the comments to this post.
".ES domains are mostly a courtesy to the home country"
-- Not sure whether this represents greater ignorance or greater arrogance. Seemingly you believe that the .com's, and .net's, and .org's are the only TLD's that 'really matter', but I have news for you. Almost certainly there are millions in Spain who rarely every go to a website that doesn't end with .es.
And then this gem-->
"...perhaps we can have the whole .es registry only resolve for DNS for people in Spain."
So, AC-- who exactly is "we"?
Does "we" include you?... Perhaps you're John Morton or one of his junior in-house counsel from ICE, out to fend off the criticism you're taking over the "Consti-what?" attitude which seems to be running rampant over there at DHS. Or-- are you an 'IAA insider who knows you can buy your own law, regulation and enforcement whenever needed?
Gosh, I may not be part of your "we", but I happen to be a rights-holder myself, and I have "concerns" dammit, and I intend to make a call or two and get some changes made to DNS resolution of TLD's from some of these impudent little countries like Spain. Who cares if somebody traveling outside of Spain on business can't access their own website. It will still be there for them when they get back home.
Recall that IP maximalists here have said repeatedly that the US's days in manufacturing are over. America's future now depends on a ferocious defense of IP, because IP is what the US is really good at (and the only thing it has left). Further, it has been implied that this is some kind of natural evolution of business.
By shipping much of our manufacturing to China, one might suspect that we have been enabling our own economic eclipse. First they make our products, then they copy them, then they improve them, then the make their own original products. This pattern has been repeated many times in the past with other smaller countries. Do IP maximalists really believe that more aggressive IP enforcement will stop the process with China, with India possibly not far behind?
Perhaps there are other venues where this argument might be better pursued, but I wonder how wise has it been for the US to move its manufacturing base elsewhere? Has it truly been inevitable, or is it just a case of corporate management selling out our future to enhance their own compensation packages (which are based on a short-term measurement of stock price during the narrow window of years when an individual CEO reigns over a given company).
One of the main problems I have with IP maximalists is that they think that the person who went through the legal exercise of recording an idea holds all the value while the actual producer of physical goods is an trivial contributor. In the long-run I believe that kind of thinking could well be disastrous.
The essence of being a politician in a democracy is to be able to say "yes" to as many potential voters as possible. Of course, you can't truthfully say yes to everyone. Voters, and particularly the special interests groups who will be paying for your campaigns, have this annoying way of having conflicting interests. Far too often the plan is: "Tell both of 'em YES" ...then let either the courts or the regulators in the executive branch sort out the mess later.
This angst-ridden comment seems completely implausible to me. For starters, since when did the web lead to limitation of your customer/fan base to just a local region.
I have yet to see a desirable service or a commodity where someone hasn't been able to find a way to make a substantial buck on it. This is regardless of how plentiful the good or service may be. Multiple examples come to mind, but for a quick one -- How about the guy in Santa Rosa, CA who is making millions by selling the most common substance on the planet - salt water. You can buy his kit in nearly every pharmacy in the US, or you can get some table salt and tap water and make your own.
The key is, (as has been said endlessly here) Marketing strategy and business models matter. Trying to use the blunt force of law to coerce millions of individuals to act differently than what seems reasonable to them doesn't seem like a business strategy that will be a great success in the long-run. Yet this is precisely the strategy of the large Labels.
My point is: You are suggesting there won't be any large successful musical acts if the current large recording industry labels fail. To that I say again -- Implausible.
"More entitlement...who cares what you have and haven't heard."
Rose answered this very well, but I'll elaborate on that a bit more.
People or companies who achieve success, especially if they have been not only been rewarded with money, but also notoriety and fame, sometimes fall victim to the idea that their good position in the economy and in society is due to how good, special or extraordinary THEY are. It leads to a sense of elite entitlement.
In fact, they have been rewarded, not because they are intrinsically better than those around them, but because of what they do for OTHER people. It is the goods, services, or even the sense of well being that they give to others, and the marketplace recognition of this fact, that matters.
This is a subtle, but important point, because those who don't grasp the principle often lose [and deserve to lose] their dominant position, once they become comfortable in their success.
So, having said this, I would suggest that the AC's comment betrays that the sense entitlement is exactly reversed from what he was claiming.
"penalties for not having the counterfeits labeled "knock off" with double the civil and criminal penalities. This would get the companies free advertising and "people branding" and no advertising cost to them."
Hephaestus: This is a very interesting idea that I have not encountered before. Is it something you thought of, or has it been suggested in the past?
You still missed the point, and you didn't address DH's comment.
It's not a question of whether Amazon would have found other reasons to cut Wikileaks off. The point is -- The obvious intervention by the government is going to scare off other customers who may have heretofore been prepared to spend considerable resources on cloud computing. That can't be good for Amazon's business in the long run.
If this isn't clear enough for you, then read some of the other threads.,
I don't know the first thing about guitar strings, but one thing I do know is that-- Despite Mr. D'addario's claim, Alibaba is a multi-billion dollar corporation through which literally hundreds of thousands of companies sell millions of legitimate products.
Hmm. You reference the Nike Lawsuit over Counterfeit Sneakers from last year.
It should be pointed out that the Nike story occurred in Britain where the law is quite different from the US. The person who bought the shoes, was found to have violated the law, rather than the website.
The interesting thing despite what might be considered a more stringent law in Britain, suing didn't turn out any better for Nike than it did for Mr. D'Addario. They were awarded only a pair of cheap counterfeit shoes. No money (although presumably their lawyer still got paid).
"operations by ICE will have exactly 0.00% affect on trademark infringement of D'Addario strings in China"
Actually, I wouldn't be so sure of that. For many years, the US government has actively sent agents to Asia looking to pinpoint the sources of infringement or of unauthorized gray-market goods.
For example, roughly 15 years ago, it was possible to go to Seoul and buy authentic products from Nike, Coach, Columbia Sportswear, Louis Vuitton, etc. for prices that were anywhere from 1/4 to 1/10 of the cost in the US. These items were identical in every respect to goods sold in the US and Europe because they came from the contracted manufacturing sites, which were in Seoul at the time. Local Korean manufacturers were fulfilling their contracted production runs, but were making extra numbers of these items and selling them in shops in Itaewon and other places frequented by foreigners in Korea. These goods were obviously being sold in violation of contracts between the Korean manufacturing plants and the US or European companies. Eventually this became common knowledge, whereupon, US Customs officials came to Korea and "expressed their concern" with Korean government officials. Korean police raids of the shops and factories followed. At first, when the crack-down started, it was still possible to buy some of otherwise authentic goods, but with the brand names cut off of the items. Eventually however, even that became greatly reduced. Overall, US Customs was quite successful with this at that time.
Now that China is the main focus, I doubt they have changed tactics much.
One aspect of this which I wonder about (I am certainly not an expert in international trademark law) -- This looks like a contract issue, and therefore a civil, rather than criminal problem. Nonetheless, US government pressure did result in arrests related to this.
Regardless of what may or may not have been said in the newspaper article, and regardless of whether it was true or not, it doesn't matter. Generally you can't defame the dead, as the dead legally do not have a reputation to protect. Five states however, do have statutes regarding defamation of the dead.
California is not one of them.
On a side note --- I'm just curious, why do some lawyers file lawsuits that they know have zero chance of success?
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At some point you have to decide to go out and do some real work. That didn't come until after the 25th for me.
Of course you can't forget the old aphorism "Every day's a school day", so maybe some of us are still at it.
I do think there's plenty to learn by paying attention to the conversations around here.
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Understanding, or even guessing at, the incentives of other interested parties is an inherent part of the equation when ideas are being tossed around.
BTW, I believe you do it to Mike all the time... and have even done it in the comments to this post.
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re:
And then this gem--> So, AC-- who exactly is "we"?
Does "we" include you?... Perhaps you're John Morton or one of his junior in-house counsel from ICE, out to fend off the criticism you're taking over the "Consti-what?" attitude which seems to be running rampant over there at DHS.
Or-- are you an 'IAA insider who knows you can buy your own law, regulation and enforcement whenever needed?
Gosh, I may not be part of your "we", but I happen to be a rights-holder myself, and I have "concerns" dammit, and I intend to make a call or two and get some changes made to DNS resolution of TLD's from some of these impudent little countries like Spain. Who cares if somebody traveling outside of Spain on business can't access their own website. It will still be there for them when they get back home.
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re:
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google's Childish Response To Microsoft Using Google To Increase Bing Relevance
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Giving More Patents To Startups Won't Increase Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Further, it has been implied that this is some kind of natural evolution of business.
By shipping much of our manufacturing to China, one might suspect that we have been enabling our own economic eclipse. First they make our products, then they copy them, then they improve them, then the make their own original products. This pattern has been repeated many times in the past with other smaller countries. Do IP maximalists really believe that more aggressive IP enforcement will stop the process with China, with India possibly not far behind?
Perhaps there are other venues where this argument might be better pursued, but I wonder how wise has it been for the US to move its manufacturing base elsewhere? Has it truly been inevitable, or is it just a case of corporate management selling out our future to enhance their own compensation packages (which are based on a short-term measurement of stock price during the narrow window of years when an individual CEO reigns over a given company).
One of the main problems I have with IP maximalists is that they think that the person who went through the legal exercise of recording an idea holds all the value while the actual producer of physical goods is an trivial contributor. In the long-run I believe that kind of thinking could well be disastrous.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re:
You say the police can follow you for days and it's "not stalking".
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the police can stalk someone for days and not be violating the law?
After all, what exactly is the definition of the word stalking"?
On the post: US Government Pushing Pro And Anti-Privacy Internet Rules At The Same Time
Of course, you can't truthfully say yes to everyone. Voters, and particularly the special interests groups who will be paying for your campaigns, have this annoying way of having conflicting interests.
Far too often the plan is: "Tell both of 'em YES" ...then let either the courts or the regulators in the executive branch sort out the mess later.
On the post: Digital Music Has Only 'Failed' If You're Not Paying Attention
Re: Re: Sadness really
For starters, since when did the web lead to limitation of your customer/fan base to just a local region.
I have yet to see a desirable service or a commodity where someone hasn't been able to find a way to make a substantial buck on it. This is regardless of how plentiful the good or service may be. Multiple examples come to mind, but for a quick one -- How about the guy in Santa Rosa, CA who is making millions by selling the most common substance on the planet - salt water. You can buy his kit in nearly every pharmacy in the US, or you can get some table salt and tap water and make your own.
The key is, (as has been said endlessly here) Marketing strategy and business models matter.
Trying to use the blunt force of law to coerce millions of individuals to act differently than what seems reasonable to them doesn't seem like a business strategy that will be a great success in the long-run. Yet this is precisely the strategy of the large Labels.
My point is: You are suggesting there won't be any large successful musical acts if the current large recording industry labels fail.
To that I say again -- Implausible.
On the post: Video Of Last Week's Thoughtful Discussion On Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: $750,000?!?!
People or companies who achieve success, especially if they have been not only been rewarded with money, but also notoriety and fame, sometimes fall victim to the idea that their good position in the economy and in society is due to how good, special or extraordinary THEY are.
It leads to a sense of elite entitlement.
In fact, they have been rewarded, not because they are intrinsically better than those around them, but because of what they do for OTHER people.
It is the goods, services, or even the sense of well being that they give to others, and the marketplace recognition of this fact, that matters.
This is a subtle, but important point, because those who don't grasp the principle often lose [and deserve to lose] their dominant position, once they become comfortable in their success.
So, having said this, I would suggest that the AC's comment betrays that the sense entitlement is exactly reversed from what he was claiming.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is a very interesting idea that I have not encountered before. Is it something you thought of, or has it been suggested in the past?
On the post: Daniel Ellsberg And Others Discuss The Serious Implications Of Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a question of whether Amazon would have found other reasons to cut Wikileaks off.
The point is -- The obvious intervention by the government is going to scare off other customers who may have heretofore been prepared to spend considerable resources on cloud computing.
That can't be good for Amazon's business in the long run.
If this isn't clear enough for you, then read some of the other threads.,
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re:
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: D'Addario
Despite Mr. D'addario's claim, Alibaba is a multi-billion dollar corporation through which literally hundreds of thousands of companies sell millions of legitimate products.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re:
It should be pointed out that the Nike story occurred in Britain where the law is quite different from the US. The person who bought the shoes, was found to have violated the law, rather than the website.
The interesting thing despite what might be considered a more stringent law in Britain, suing didn't turn out any better for Nike than it did for Mr. D'Addario. They were awarded only a pair of cheap counterfeit shoes. No money (although presumably their lawyer still got paid).
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: COICA will affect China how?
For many years, the US government has actively sent agents to Asia looking to pinpoint the sources of infringement or of unauthorized gray-market goods.
For example, roughly 15 years ago, it was possible to go to Seoul and buy authentic products from Nike, Coach, Columbia Sportswear, Louis Vuitton, etc. for prices that were anywhere from 1/4 to 1/10 of the cost in the US. These items were identical in every respect to goods sold in the US and Europe because they came from the contracted manufacturing sites, which were in Seoul at the time. Local Korean manufacturers were fulfilling their contracted production runs, but were making extra numbers of these items and selling them in shops in Itaewon and other places frequented by foreigners in Korea. These goods were obviously being sold in violation of contracts between the Korean manufacturing plants and the US or European companies.
Eventually this became common knowledge, whereupon, US Customs officials came to Korea and "expressed their concern" with Korean government officials. Korean police raids of the shops and factories followed. At first, when the crack-down started, it was still possible to buy some of otherwise authentic goods, but with the brand names cut off of the items. Eventually however, even that became greatly reduced.
Overall, US Customs was quite successful with this at that time.
Now that China is the main focus, I doubt they have changed tactics much.
One aspect of this which I wonder about (I am certainly not an expert in international trademark law) -- This looks like a contract issue, and therefore a civil, rather than criminal problem. Nonetheless, US government pressure did result in arrests related to this.
On the post: Guy Sues Newspaper Editor For Refusing To Remove Articles He Doesn't Like About His Son
You can't defame the dead (in most states)
Generally you can't defame the dead, as the dead legally do not have a reputation to protect. Five states however, do have statutes regarding defamation of the dead.
California is not one of them.
On a side note --- I'm just curious, why do some lawyers file lawsuits that they know have zero chance of success?
Next >>