And look, this AC is wasting his time reading this article, wasting our time complaining about Mike, makes snide allegations about incomplete reporting, and YET has NOT added any backup to his complaint. Where is your "not one sided" analysis. Where is your "more convenient" facts to back up these allegations. OH WAIT, instead of believing Mike, we need to take this ACs UNVERIFIED and unsupported (without any facts or references) accusations that Mike is wrong.
What is wrong with this picture. Please stop the obnoxious rant and support your side with your more convenient facts, a balanced analysis and some supporting references. OR, JUST SHUT UP AND GO BACK INTO YOUR ANGRY HOLE IN THE GROUND.
The RIAA says that "pirating" is just an educational issue and that people knew the facts and the law they would understand and stop doing it (yes, I know, the RIAA doesn't seem to know the facts or the law, but that is beside the point).
Who is there that can educate these NY politicians as to the facts, the law, the Consitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court rulings that set the precedents that will quickly shoot down these laws if the bills ever get passed.
On the one hand, these politicians talk about how social services need to be cut to save money and on the other hand, they waste millions of taxpayer dollars writing, compaining for, and then defending in court these bills they want to pass into law that will be struck down by the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds as violating the First Amendment.
The RIAA is the wrong group because they can't seem to understand the difference between simple concepts such as theft and infringement. But who can prepare the proper educational materials for these politicians. Is there a law professor, lawyer, or group such as EFF or anybody who can get their ear and make them stop wasting time and money on passing a law that will never stand?
The TV execs really like that they get paid by the advertisers to put on the advertisements (you know the ones you don't watch for the 4000th time when you walk away to go get a snack) and they like it when DISH or the cable company pays them again to re-broadcast it. They just don't want to give up the double dip. If I pay DISH to see the show, why to I have to "pay" again by watching the commercials. They are getting paid, they just want to get paid twice. What a great business plan, get paid (at least) twice for the exact same content. How do I get in on that scam?
I believe it was in economics class that they taught that investments go to where there is money to be made. I wish I had enough to invest in an alternative label that could take advantage of the new distribution systems and cut out the old gatekeepers. I'm thinking that you don't need the traditional system of distribution to ship the disks, just the internet to facilitate downloads. The Post Office, FedEx, UPS, DHL and others will ship the disks and other physical goods when needed. Finally, a tour promoter to handle that end of the business. Oh, and don't forget a set of internet radio stations to broadcast the music (one for each genre - rock, country, etc). Does anyone know somebody that can bootstrap this operation and dump the major labels?
I am not "nannied" by those politicians but I can categorically state that what they are doing will achieve nothing. In Baltimore, there was a famous red light district "The Block", many many "strip clubs", which was actually about 8 blocks long. At one end was the Baltimore City Police Central Station. A while ago, the politicians decided to "clean up" the block because there was too much prostitution going on and they wanted to stop it. So, after denying permits for alchohol, health code violations and other trumped up charges, most of the bars and adult bookstores closed on the "The Block". Then, the bars and adult book stores opened in other places and the prostitutes moved up to the block where the court house was and on to other streets and neighborhoods. All you had to do was watch the papers and/or ask around and it was easy to find out where they relocated. There "may" be less, but now it is harder to find because it is not all in one place. It is not done in one place where everybody knows where it is and next to a police station (where could the girls be safer from abuse and watched for being underage than right next to a police station?). Now, the streetwalkers have to be on the go and in other neighborhoods (which I'm sure is good for the neighbors). But, the politicians of yesteryear (who the hell were they), go to play whack a mole and not achieve anything. Yeah for useless politicians and could you please stop and give me back some of my money?
Oh, come on, they were properly accused by the entertainment industry. What is your problem? Just like the Special 301 report. Let them take their punishment now. That's all the entertainment industry needs is a proper accusation in a court with no defendants in the court room to get in the way of proper justice. This is better than those pesky little sue the customers compaigns where they started showing up in court with lawyers and were found innocent. This is much better, just have an ex-parte court hearing and get them blocked. Yeah, that's the ticket. ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED. .
Society also lets many other "War" games go on with no mention. Just listen to all the football commentators talk about the "weapons" that a quarterback has, and the attack and defensive postitions. Of course who would want to blame football and stop that multi-billion dollar industry. Games are life simulations and "almost" every game involves winners and losers. Of course, politians and news reporters always need to "blame" somebody or something and just blaming the crazy guy with a gun is not enough. Well, who else can we blame, did he wear clothes, a helmet, did he use a car, a road, one of those evil phones (I wondered whether it was wired or wireless), a TV (let's blame the TV manufacturers, he used a TV monitor with his gaming - DOWN WITH TVs). What else can we rant about and blame? Well, we've got to pin it on something besides the crazy guy and all of the people around him who didn't notice what was going on. Right?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
OK, so you aren't going to answer any question or respond to the points I made, you are just going to go off on another diatribe full of snide remarks. And to top it off, you are going to ignore that the reference source you supplied disagrees with you 100%. But, I will try one more time to turn this into a discussion and away from a RANT.
The natural rights as enumerated in the The Declaration of Independence, as explained in your reference source, and in my quote above are "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Please see here and read the full context of the second paragraph: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html. You are going to need another reference that will conclusively prove that copyright is a natural right but was not important enough to include with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" but you get to say that it is. Oh, by the way, since you referenced http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html in your first post, you will also now need to disprove what they said in that reference because it disagrees with you wholeheartedly. Copyright is not a "natural right", it is state granted. It says so right in the Constitution and it says so in your reference. Please go re-read it until you understand that.
Further, since it state granted by the Constitution in order to "Promote the Progress of the Arts", it can certainly be abridged again. Just as it has been extended from the original 14+14 year to life of the author plus 50 years (and if you could also give a good explanation of how a dead author/inventor is incented to create anything more it would be extremely helpful to the rest of us). The whole purpose of copyright was not in the state's or artist/inventor's interest, it was in the interest of the public. The current form of copyright will prevent any new works from entering the public domain for another 60 years, that is not in the public's interest at all. So, please stop ranting and start explaining.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
OK, a little further. You ignored my request and pointed me to an article that furthers my point, I quote:
So, what is copyright?
What we call ‘copyright’ is an 18th century privilege.
Copyright according to the definition you referred to is a privilege.
Your very first paragraph contains a mistake. Again according to the defintion you referred to the constitution recognizes our inalienable "rights" as follows:
We, the people, create law to recognise our rights, and create and empower a government to secure them.
What are our rights?
Rights are the vital powers of all human beings.
We have rights to life, privacy, truth, and liberty.
It does not recocognize the privilege of "copyright" as a right. It allows Congress to grant a monopoly to the authors and inventors to the fruits of their labors for a limited time. Your reference seems to prove my point.
If we are going to ignore the topic of my post and mince the words, please explain in detail the difference between the word I used "monopoly" and your phrase "the individual's exclusive right". In the broad sense, they mean the same to me. I'm not a lawyer so there may be some legal wiggling that can be applied. But, to me, a monopoly is an exclusive right. Please educate me what the difference is that you are seeing. Thanks. Then we can continue the discussion.
The constitution give Congress the power to pass such laws as "Promote the Progress" by granting limited monopolies to authors and inventors. Lets counter the maximalist arguments by proposing that since the system is broken, let's take away the government granted monopolies and start over and find a better way to promote the progress that doesn't make almost every citizen a criminal (including many IP rights holders and politicians).
Just as the miserable set of rules we have today have evolved from bad to worse, incrementally. Why can't the TSA start incrementally implementing better rules, one at a time, over the next couple of years. Try out each rule change for a little while, then move on to the next one. At least this way, the effect of each rule can be evaluated rather than just a mess of all kinds of new rules at once.
One of the interesting points that doesn't seem to get brought up much is the definition of the final product. The "artists" (or IP rights owners like the gatekeepers) seem to think that when they are done, that is the final product and forever after, this is the final state of the piece. If PVC pipe manufacturers looked at their product that way, no one would be allowed to cut the pipe to the length needed because it would change their pipe. The same could be said of the producers of wood products. What if canvas producers were so protective of messing up their canvas with paint? Modern "artists" are "remixers". Whether it is "hubcap" art, or buried cars, or taking pieces of digital images or parts of existing songs and combining them into a new piece of art, they are using the next generation of raw materials. In the early days of electronics, the designer took discreet transisters, resisters, and capacitors and created a new electronic device. Now, the "components" are entire boards of electronics that are combined together to create new products. Could you imagine what would happen if a hard disk manufacturer could control what you could write to the hard disk you purchased from them? Sorry, no digital pictures, just word documents on this hard drive or I'll sue you. AND, they implemented the controller board so that indeed no digital images were allowed? It seems that the output of one "artist" or craftsman is just going to be the input to the next one. They need to get used to this idea (one that just can't be copyrighted).
Mike has redefined publishing to be "pushing a button". You said "No, he's wrong, a publisher is an editor, marketer and cover artist". I don't understand that definition, sorry, I'll get flamed for that, that definition doesn't make sense. Maybe to be successful a "creater", "editor", "marketer", and "cover artist" are needed and they need to work together to create the "product". Wait a minute, according to what you said, those four professionals are needed but what did the publisher do? Similar to the record labels, a publisher was an unbrella organization that handled many tasks for a creater, it handled marketing (advertising, tours, signings, speaking, on so on), editing, joining with artists (cover art, maps, and other internal art), payables and receivables, and sometimes nanny (for those that needed the coddling). Publishers also arranged with printers, binders, truckers and retailers to handle physical production and distrubution of the works. They were a typical "middle man", they took the work of various others, put it all together, and made the system work. Now, many of those tasks are unnecessary or automatically handled. For example, the work must still be distributed, but the flow of electrons across the internet is already easily handled by the Internet (well the IPSs will tell you it is hard but that is a different story). The retailer is a web site and because of the electronic distribution, they make their own copy (it's what computers do well) and ship it across the aformentioned Internet. Then (hopefully) they send a payment to the author (after taking their cut of course). So that website handles the printing (copying), marketing (display on website), retailing (although no stockboy is necessary), and shipping. Or, this could all be handled by the author's own website, in which case, he/she keeps a bigger portion of the pie.
Saying "no, your definition is wrong" but not supplying a better one is wrong also. What he was saying is that the definition of publishing has changed from the gatekeeper role that used to have all of the contacts ready to handle all of the underlying tasks (and take the copyright away from the author). To a role that any author can undertake themself by making their own contacts (usually via the Internet) and publishing the work without a gatekeeper.
The end result is a published work where the artist/creator/author still owns the copyright to their work, they get more of the fruits of their labor, and will sink or swim because of their own efforts and not the mysterious mechanizations (that they get charged for) inside the big publishing house where they lose control of their own work.
Now, you may think that my definition/example is also not right, but then maybe you will stand up your own definition of publishing as a counter arguement and let the rest of us take potshots at it. Although it would be better if another counter-defintion is used to move the topic forward. The potshots don't really help except in a few rare cases of specific small points. Make your best effort and give your point of view defintion of publishing and we can then offer our insight on where you are right or wrong. This system is often referred to as the "Triad" or thesis-antithesis-synthesis methodology often attributed to Hegel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Triads) to continously refine the idea until it has evolved into its final (for now) form. Please put forward your considered antithesis for consideration and then let the synthisis phase begin. Then we'll start all over again for the next round.
The legacy gatekeepers have gotten so full of themselves that they are the only ones who know what art is, that they truly believe that no one else can. How many very good artists have fallen by the wayside becuase they can't get recognition by the gatekeepers (look up the story of the band Crack the Sky for another one).
The more quickly the legacy gatekeepers can be routed around, the better off we will all be.
No, No, No, you've got it all wrong. They are not threatening you, they are educating you. You know, teaching you all the correct rules about what you can and can't do with your newly borrowed book.
Oh, wait, you don't actually need their permission to use any little snippet of the text, there is fair use after all (at least for the time being in the US - against their wishes of course).
Well, they are mostly teaching you the correct rules. At least the correct rules as they see it. Now just stop whining and pay them two or three more times for that same book and shut up, they are trying to enjoy their caviar.
In the Golden Days of Old, it was very, very, very hard to make a good copy of a book/song/movie/other IP. Companies put a lot of effort into making "good" copies. As a consequence of that, something was done exactly 1 time and many many copies of the recording were sold. At first, the only "theatrical" copies were made. Everyone had to go to the "movie theater" to see the show. Or, a physical book had to be purchased. When the art of reproduction and especially high quality reproduction was invented. First, home entertainment started to include seeing movies. TV allowed movies into the home. Then the VCR did it. Then the DVD did it again. The studios raked in the profits. However; technological advances did not stop. At first, even mass produced DVDs were expensive. If memory serves, when home DVD movies were first available, the DVD blanks were $5.00 to $7.00 each. So, DVD versions of movies were $20.00 each. When the cost of the blank became $0.25 at a retail store, the DVD version of the movies were still $20.00. The original excuse for the high price was that the higher quality media cost so much more than a VCR tape. But, the cost of the movie never came down when the cost of the blank came down. The studios seem to think that everyone is stupid and that they don't realize that the economics of making a copy has also changed.
The reality of economics (don't argue with me about this, read the economics textbooks), is that the price of a mass produced item such as a copy of a movie will naturally approach zero. The movie studios just don't want to believe it or accept it. They want to be able to charge over and over and over again just to be able to see the one time a performance was recorded in some cases, many years ago. Once big example that comes to mind is The Wizard of Oz. It was recorded a LONG time ago. If a copy is made, everybody still wants to get paid AGAIN. I've got the wrong job. When I do my job, I get paid once to do it. I don't get paid every time someone uses it. Yet, the movie studios do and to top it all off, they don't even bother to pay the people they are supposed to pay (again) for a performance that was done long ago. What a great deal if you can get it.
The Really Important Measure of the MegaUpload Shutdown
The one and only really important measure of the MegaUpload shutdown (well and all of the "Major Blow to Piracy" shutdowns) will be that 100%, 200%, 300% increase in the top line revenues of all of the major studios (well after the vigorish to the collection agencies). Now that all of that pirating is gone, the logical conclusion is that there will be a HUGE uplift in the revenue to the old-line studios. Wal-Mart and the gangs should see a huge uplift in sales, NetFlix and Blockbuster should be solvent again now. The whole entertainment industry will be better off. Now, even theater revenues should be up by a couple of hundred percent. Please, let me know when this starts happening. If I believed that even a 5% lift was going to be visible, I would be out buying stock in those companies like crazy. However; I believe that even if there were some lift in the top line revenue, the senior management would just make it go away with bonuses for themselves anyway. In reality, I would be willing to bet my $1.00 (movie reference here) that there will not be any noticeable lift in revenue for any of the studios that can be attributed to the MegaUpload shutdown or any other anti-piracy campaign that have mounted.
Re: Re: Soon we won't own our cars like we don't own our phones
Yes, I would love the fix for that. My email ID is Tom and I'm at TasMot.com. BTW, the lock on the cell phone is a job requirement, not an option, what with the type of corporate email I have and all.
Soon we won't own our cars like we don't own our phones
My Verizon stupid s**t phone has a lot of Verizon CRAPWARE apps on it that I can't remove. My new Nissan has a navigation system that I can only set when I have the car in park. So, I have another navigation system on the dash that isn't hooked into the car except for power. I use the one on the dash. I won't buy a navigation system built into my next car.
My Nissan also has a built in DVD system for the kids in the back. BUT, when I start moving, my wife can't make adjustments to it on the front panel like we can when the car is in part (you know, complicated things like hit play). So she has to get out the remote and lean into the back seat to work the DVD player. When I'm driving the kids by myself, that's what I have to do. Why is this better? I like the idea of the built in screen, but now I need to figure out how to rewire it so that I can control the DVD player. Which means that I will end up with a DVD player floating around in the car that I have to take my eyes off the road to locate, make the adjustments, and then put back. This is going to be much less distracting than just reaching up to the dash and pushing play isn't it.
On the other hand, my Nissan also has a hands free bluetooth for my phone. This is really great. Except, I can't dial from the dash while I'm moving. Nope, I have to get the phone out of my pocket, type in the unlock code, select the phone dialer application, dial the number, and then put it back in my pocket. Of course, that is much much less distracting than just dialing from the dash board at 65 miles an hour.
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Re:
What is wrong with this picture. Please stop the obnoxious rant and support your side with your more convenient facts, a balanced analysis and some supporting references. OR, JUST SHUT UP AND GO BACK INTO YOUR ANGRY HOLE IN THE GROUND.
On the post: Who's The Coward? Thin-Skinned NY Politicians Try To Ban Anonymous Comments
Who's job is it...
Who is there that can educate these NY politicians as to the facts, the law, the Consitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court rulings that set the precedents that will quickly shoot down these laws if the bills ever get passed.
On the one hand, these politicians talk about how social services need to be cut to save money and on the other hand, they waste millions of taxpayer dollars writing, compaining for, and then defending in court these bills they want to pass into law that will be struck down by the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds as violating the First Amendment.
The RIAA is the wrong group because they can't seem to understand the difference between simple concepts such as theft and infringement. But who can prepare the proper educational materials for these politicians. Is there a law professor, lawyer, or group such as EFF or anybody who can get their ear and make them stop wasting time and money on passing a law that will never stand?
On the post: TV Network Execs Contemplate Going To Court To Say Skipping Commercials Is Illegal
It's all about the Double Dipping
On the post: Swizz Beatz: Technology Brings Freedom To Musicians; Those Not Embracing It Are Greedy
One Point I'm Missing
On the post: Misguided Senators Propose Plan To Make It Harder For Law Enforcement To Track Down Human Trafficking Online
Re: I agree...but also disgree
On the post: Can Someone Explain When The Pirate Bay Was Actually Put On Trial In The UK?
It's the new One Strike Procedure they wanted
On the post: Breivik, The Press And The Ongoing Myth Of The 'Violent Gamer'
Lets Stop Other Popular WAR Games Also
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Try To Regroup And Figure Out How To 'Fight Back' Against The Public
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
The natural rights as enumerated in the The Declaration of Independence, as explained in your reference source, and in my quote above are "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Please see here and read the full context of the second paragraph: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html. You are going to need another reference that will conclusively prove that copyright is a natural right but was not important enough to include with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" but you get to say that it is. Oh, by the way, since you referenced http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html in your first post, you will also now need to disprove what they said in that reference because it disagrees with you wholeheartedly. Copyright is not a "natural right", it is state granted. It says so right in the Constitution and it says so in your reference. Please go re-read it until you understand that.
Further, since it state granted by the Constitution in order to "Promote the Progress of the Arts", it can certainly be abridged again. Just as it has been extended from the original 14+14 year to life of the author plus 50 years (and if you could also give a good explanation of how a dead author/inventor is incented to create anything more it would be extremely helpful to the rest of us). The whole purpose of copyright was not in the state's or artist/inventor's interest, it was in the interest of the public. The current form of copyright will prevent any new works from entering the public domain for another 60 years, that is not in the public's interest at all. So, please stop ranting and start explaining.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Try To Regroup And Figure Out How To 'Fight Back' Against The Public
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
So, what is copyright?
What we call ‘copyright’ is an 18th century privilege.
Copyright according to the definition you referred to is a privilege.
Your very first paragraph contains a mistake. Again according to the defintion you referred to the constitution recognizes our inalienable "rights" as follows:
We, the people, create law to recognise our rights, and create and empower a government to secure them.
What are our rights?
Rights are the vital powers of all human beings.
We have rights to life, privacy, truth, and liberty.
It does not recocognize the privilege of "copyright" as a right. It allows Congress to grant a monopoly to the authors and inventors to the fruits of their labors for a limited time. Your reference seems to prove my point.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Try To Regroup And Figure Out How To 'Fight Back' Against The Public
Re: Re: Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Try To Regroup And Figure Out How To 'Fight Back' Against The Public
Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
On the post: Former TSA Boss Admits Airport Screening Is Broken
OK, lets not do a Big "Blame-able" change
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
What is a Final Product
On the post: Publishing Isn't A Job Anymore: It's A Button
Re: This article is extraordinarily silly
Saying "no, your definition is wrong" but not supplying a better one is wrong also. What he was saying is that the definition of publishing has changed from the gatekeeper role that used to have all of the contacts ready to handle all of the underlying tasks (and take the copyright away from the author). To a role that any author can undertake themself by making their own contacts (usually via the Internet) and publishing the work without a gatekeeper.
The end result is a published work where the artist/creator/author still owns the copyright to their work, they get more of the fruits of their labor, and will sink or swim because of their own efforts and not the mysterious mechanizations (that they get charged for) inside the big publishing house where they lose control of their own work.
Now, you may think that my definition/example is also not right, but then maybe you will stand up your own definition of publishing as a counter arguement and let the rest of us take potshots at it. Although it would be better if another counter-defintion is used to move the topic forward. The potshots don't really help except in a few rare cases of specific small points. Make your best effort and give your point of view defintion of publishing and we can then offer our insight on where you are right or wrong. This system is often referred to as the "Triad" or thesis-antithesis-synthesis methodology often attributed to Hegel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Triads) to continously refine the idea until it has evolved into its final (for now) form. Please put forward your considered antithesis for consideration and then let the synthisis phase begin. Then we'll start all over again for the next round.
On the post: If Piracy Is So Devastating, Why Are We Seeing An Unprecedented Outpouring Of Creativity?
Because I am a gatekeeper and I Know Better
The more quickly the legacy gatekeepers can be routed around, the better off we will all be.
On the post: Why Do Publishers Treat Customers As Crooks With Scolding Copyright Notices?
NO NO NO
Oh, wait, you don't actually need their permission to use any little snippet of the text, there is fair use after all (at least for the time being in the US - against their wishes of course).
Well, they are mostly teaching you the correct rules. At least the correct rules as they see it. Now just stop whining and pay them two or three more times for that same book and shut up, they are trying to enjoy their caviar.
On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?
And Let's Discuss the REAL Issue
The reality of economics (don't argue with me about this, read the economics textbooks), is that the price of a mass produced item such as a copy of a movie will naturally approach zero. The movie studios just don't want to believe it or accept it. They want to be able to charge over and over and over again just to be able to see the one time a performance was recorded in some cases, many years ago. Once big example that comes to mind is The Wizard of Oz. It was recorded a LONG time ago. If a copy is made, everybody still wants to get paid AGAIN. I've got the wrong job. When I do my job, I get paid once to do it. I don't get paid every time someone uses it. Yet, the movie studios do and to top it all off, they don't even bother to pay the people they are supposed to pay (again) for a performance that was done long ago. What a great deal if you can get it.
On the post: Has The Megaupload Shutdown Been Good For The Entertainment Industry?
The Really Important Measure of the MegaUpload Shutdown
On the post: New Rules To Block 'Distracted Driving' Will Likely Make Things Worse, Not Better
Re: Re: Soon we won't own our cars like we don't own our phones
On the post: New Rules To Block 'Distracted Driving' Will Likely Make Things Worse, Not Better
Soon we won't own our cars like we don't own our phones
My Nissan also has a built in DVD system for the kids in the back. BUT, when I start moving, my wife can't make adjustments to it on the front panel like we can when the car is in part (you know, complicated things like hit play). So she has to get out the remote and lean into the back seat to work the DVD player. When I'm driving the kids by myself, that's what I have to do. Why is this better? I like the idea of the built in screen, but now I need to figure out how to rewire it so that I can control the DVD player. Which means that I will end up with a DVD player floating around in the car that I have to take my eyes off the road to locate, make the adjustments, and then put back. This is going to be much less distracting than just reaching up to the dash and pushing play isn't it.
On the other hand, my Nissan also has a hands free bluetooth for my phone. This is really great. Except, I can't dial from the dash while I'm moving. Nope, I have to get the phone out of my pocket, type in the unlock code, select the phone dialer application, dial the number, and then put it back in my pocket. Of course, that is much much less distracting than just dialing from the dash board at 65 miles an hour.
Next >>