When I was around 2 and my dad was in Vietnam, he used to send home tapes. My mom says I used to show the tape recorder my toys, talk to it, and refer to it as dad. I somehow managed to adjust once he came home though.
Seems like a game of chicken to see just how committed Hadopi is to ensuring the complete implementation of this process. They apparently have nothing to lose--either Hadopi pays them for use of their SMTP servers or open a legal vulnerability in the process (big assumption on my part, I know) because users will sue when they get cut off without notice.
Free doesn't have anything to lose unless their customers turn against them, but I agree with you Mike, this seems pretty foolish. I suspect they have no altruistic intent here, just being opportunistic and gambling that users will blame Hadopi regardless.
Actually, we agree. I'm not trying to debate whether or not the punishment fits the supposed infraction (I think it certainly does not). I'm just wondering why folks are reacting so differently to this than other punishment methods.
But what I'm taking from this thread is the reason is exactly your third paragraph--they are reacting to the combination, not so much the punishment individually, which makes sense.
Well, my point was not to debate whether punishment is justified for the activity (I certainly think it is not), just whether or not a cessation of social interaction via the internet is any different than a cessation of social interaction via physical segregation.
But wait a minute, why is this any different than jail? If we agree on the assertion that the act that would result in internet disconnection is punishable, how is this punishment more difficult to deal with than jail or a halfway house? Many normal punishments seriously reduce social interaction as well.
Yup. I bought my son one of the halo mega blok sets, which he was really excited about. That excitement turned to frustration very quickly when he showed me that a number of the pieces had difficulty staying together. Those pieces now sit unused.
Not many of those explanations are speaking to me.
This seems to ignore that those in power often (and arguably have to) consider and value things differently given that they have a broader context in which they must operate.
Middle managers have to balance their subordinates needs with the their superior's expectations which are often in conflict: subordinates want the greatest compensation possible while superiors want the highest profit for the enterprise. Those don't have to be mutually exclusive, but it is incredibly nuanced to figure out how to optimize that balance.
I do agree with the transparency objective, but it depends on what you mean. I once took a course on practical ethics and one of the main things I took away from that whenever there was a hard decision to make among a group of people, try to make explicit as many of the implicit value trade-offs being made among the participants. In practice, this is very hard to do, but well worth the effort.
Thank god there are other sane human beings that feel this way. I could listen to just about anything from the Meatmen to Cecilia Bartoli, but Eagles? Blech.
This would be great, but if the shop that you want to use can't get the parts, well...
For example, I tried to get my 2003 Mini Cooper transmission repaired at two different non-dealer shops that service BMWs and neither could get the parts.
Your example of locking up public domain material is fallacious by definition. If it is in the public domain, you CANNOT lock it up. Whether or not you placed A COPY of it behind DRM is not relevant and could be addressed very simply in court, although not via an affirmative defense. If your concern is that you could be taken to court at all, welcome to America where people get taken to court for legitimate circumventions around DRM and legitimate fair use.
If you are trying to argue that you might lock up something in the public domain that is not available anywhere else in the public domain, I have two questions: a) how could that possibly be a realistic example since for this to be true it would have to be years after its creation, and b) shouldn't that be illegal anyway?
Addressing #6 above, yes it should be illegal, because you are locking up content that society has said you may not.
Re: Re: It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
Also, it makes little sense to claim the whole of the period since 1790 given that the patent law landscape looks very different today than it did even 20 years ago. The perspective on them has shifted from a rare, short-term government granted monopoly to handing them out like candy and a priority for the government to provide.
Re: Re: It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
With all due respect that's anecdotal at best and fails to recognize another possibility--which is that the pace of innovation could have been far greater.
Yeah, I guess I wasted hundreds of precious hours on predicate algebra, discrete math, and algorithmic theorems during my undergrad computer science degree. DAMMIT!
Re: It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
This was an insightful and helpful post, except for your unfounded assertion about confirmation bias. I assume you have factual information that would demonstrate that there is a significant amount of data that would dispute his "prejudices"?
The above has been requested over and over again on this blog, and not once have I seen a satisfactory response--it would be refreshing to have some additional information for a change.
My definition of information that would support your assertion of confirmation bias: multiple peer-reviewed and widely-accepted studies and/or analysis based on peer-reviewed and widely-accepted statistics.
The tired, avoidance response I expect? "I'm not going to do your googling for you..." Please exceed my expectations.
If they have a higher expectation of privacy, then they are ignorant and don't understand even the fundamental concept of wireless networks.
There is no difference between me running around a public place shouting my bank account numbers with a nametag on, and me doing the samething without a nametag on. I'm still spewing my information into public access spaces.
On the post: Red Hat Settles Patent Case With Acacia... But Won't Share The Details
Re: Sticky Fingered Infringers
On the post: The Boy Who Mistook An iPhone For His Mother
I called a tape recorder, "Dad"...
On the post: French ISP 'Free' Refusing To Send Out Hadopi Notices To Users [Updated]
Re: Why it's not worse but better
On the post: French ISP 'Free' Refusing To Send Out Hadopi Notices To Users [Updated]
Free doesn't have anything to lose unless their customers turn against them, but I agree with you Mike, this seems pretty foolish. I suspect they have no altruistic intent here, just being opportunistic and gambling that users will blame Hadopi regardless.
On the post: Could Cutting People Off From The Internet Be Dangerous?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But what I'm taking from this thread is the reason is exactly your third paragraph--they are reacting to the combination, not so much the punishment individually, which makes sense.
On the post: Could Cutting People Off From The Internet Be Dangerous?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Could Cutting People Off From The Internet Be Dangerous?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Could Cutting People Off From The Internet Be Dangerous?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, Lego Learns That It Cannot Trademark An Interconnecting Brick
Re:
On the post: U2 Manager Blames 'Free' And Anonymous Internet Bloggers For Industry Troubles
Re: U2
On the post: It's Official: People In Power Act As If They Have Brain Damage
Seems to ignore
This seems to ignore that those in power often (and arguably have to) consider and value things differently given that they have a broader context in which they must operate.
Middle managers have to balance their subordinates needs with the their superior's expectations which are often in conflict: subordinates want the greatest compensation possible while superiors want the highest profit for the enterprise. Those don't have to be mutually exclusive, but it is incredibly nuanced to figure out how to optimize that balance.
I do agree with the transparency objective, but it depends on what you mean. I once took a course on practical ethics and one of the main things I took away from that whenever there was a hard decision to make among a group of people, try to make explicit as many of the implicit value trade-offs being made among the participants. In practice, this is very hard to do, but well worth the effort.
On the post: Don Henley Hates YouTube; Complains That The Gov't Needs To Do Something
Re: Re:
On the post: Massachusetts May Be The First To Get A Right To Repair Law
Parts is parts
For example, I tried to get my 2003 Mini Cooper transmission repaired at two different non-dealer shops that service BMWs and neither could get the parts.
On the post: Brazil's Copyright Reform Proposal: Penalties For Hindering Fair Use Or The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: lights please
If you are trying to argue that you might lock up something in the public domain that is not available anywhere else in the public domain, I have two questions: a) how could that possibly be a realistic example since for this to be true it would have to be years after its creation, and b) shouldn't that be illegal anyway?
Addressing #6 above, yes it should be illegal, because you are locking up content that society has said you may not.
On the post: IEEE Celebrates Bilski Ruling With Misleading Press Release
Re: Re: It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
There is plenty of research demonstrating that this is harming long-term innovation, regardless of whether it "feels" like it isn't. Suggest you read the recent GAO report, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/069111725X/techdirtcom, or http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1502864
On the post: IEEE Celebrates Bilski Ruling With Misleading Press Release
Re: Re: It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
Still waiting for my references, btw.
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: call it a day
On the post: IEEE Celebrates Bilski Ruling With Misleading Press Release
Re: It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
The above has been requested over and over again on this blog, and not once have I seen a satisfactory response--it would be refreshing to have some additional information for a change.
My definition of information that would support your assertion of confirmation bias: multiple peer-reviewed and widely-accepted studies and/or analysis based on peer-reviewed and widely-accepted statistics.
The tired, avoidance response I expect? "I'm not going to do your googling for you..." Please exceed my expectations.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no difference between me running around a public place shouting my bank account numbers with a nametag on, and me doing the samething without a nametag on. I'm still spewing my information into public access spaces.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>