You write that "Creativity is a freedom that needs protecting...". Exactly how does one "protect" creativity? Seems that when people attempt to be creative they are promptly sued for infringement. Creativity can be "protected" by removing/minimizing impediments such as copyright and patents.
A while back, someone commented on a New York Times article, that as manufacturing abandoned the United States, that those countries would soon begin to develop/defend their own so-called intellectual property. The push for ACTA demonstrates that the US (in extorting ever greater "rights" for so-called intellectual property) is on a suicide mission. This will be a lesson in being careful about what you ask for.
As AC pointed out, these companies have structured their business practices to make it "impossible" for the consumer to avoid "accidental" fees.
One of my daughters was charged, by a bank, for several bounced checks as highlighted by AC where only one check should really have bounced. Even that was debatable since she claimed that she had deposited a check to cover her balance.
We need to realize that this is not simply a case of consumers being responsible, it is a case of the companies gaming the system for their benefit. So lets put the blame where it belongs, on the corporations.
Cell phone companies are technological companies. They brag about all the features the phones possess that serve the user. Yet when it comes to a simple notification of "abnormal" charges or a "safety switch" that prevents an unintentional web connection, these companies seem to all of a sudden become technologically incompetent. Relative reality at work.
Today, on the Glenn Beck show, Glenn had a long monologue on restoring honesty to the US. What is troubling, is that many erstwhile Libertarians when it comes to deceptive business practices never seem actually acknowledge that those misleading business practices are part of what is wrong with the US. They can only shrilly scream the single minded mantra that government regulation is "bad", while refusing to accept the concept that these businesses are being dishonest. For the anti-regulation crowd, if a business cannot conduct itself responsibly they should loose their freedom to operate without regulation. Freedom is not a license to steal.
I assume that the devices would be "open" to the internet/LAN. Imagine the consequences of a hack that defines simple words, such as "the", as a protected keyword word.
Not only that, what about the administrative overhead of maintaining a list of authorized/prohibited words. The first group to get aggravated would probably be the lawyers photocopying their infringement letters and lawsuits.
Business methods and patents were thought to be unpalatable, but then it magically happened!!! Keep suing and some clueless judge may actually allow patenting an idea. Given today's so-called intellectual property absurdities, what is one more?
The "problem" with balance is that if someone takes an extreme point of view the fulcrum point can progressively move unreasonably in their direction. For example, some people have advocated that copyright privilege should not expire. The subsequent "balance" is the life of the author plus seventy years. Illustrating the progressive move of the fulcrum; Tom Bell wrote the following: "The first federal copyright legislation, the 1790 Copyright Act, set the maximum term at fourteen years plus a renewal term (subject to certain conditions) of fourteen years. The 1831 Copyright Act doubled the initial term and retained the conditional renewal term, allowing a total of up to forty-two years of protection. Lawmakers doubled the renewal term in 1909, letting copyrights run for up to fifty-six years. The 1976 Copyright Act changed the measure of the default copyright term to life of the author plus fifty years. Recent amendments to the Copyright Act expanded the term yet again, letting it run for the life of the author plus seventy years." Quite a difference from the original fourteen year period authorized in 1790.
While times and circumstances change, we still need to look back at the original intent of copyright and patent law to determine an appropriate "balance" based on that philosophy, not the bastardized "balance" of today.
Immediately after posting I used my fabulous Time-Warner remote control, it has a very irritating "undocumented feature". If you are on a premium channel, you cannot use the "exit" button to exit the program guide, you have to find a "free" channel. What is the sense in disabling the remote's exit button??????
Time-Warner claims through its ads that it is empowering YOU, the consumer since Time-Warner makes these movies available to YOU before other services. So how are they empowering me by eliminating my freedom to rent a movie from another source. Orwell Newspeak strikes again. What a bunch of crock.
What seems to missing from this 28 rental delay discussion is the concept of restraint of trade, or something similar. With the free-market companies are not supposed to collude to restrict consumer actions. This type of collusion along with ever more onerous so-called intellectual property is reducing the consumer to a "managed" revenue unit.
The BIG issue is that the concept of "sale" is being diminished. We live in a world of increasing absurdity, you "buy" a product with onerous terms-of-service that absolve the product producer of any liability, place all liability for the use of the product on the "purchaser", invalidate the "purchaser's" property rights, and - to top it off - require that each subsequent "purchaser" pay a fee!!!
This reminds me of another pet-peeve. My wife bought a pre-paid card without knowing the hard to read/hidden details. The card had VERIZON plastered all over it in BIG print. In little print, the underlying company was disclosed. Also the notation of "no refund" and "expires in 30 days after activation". When we read the terms of service we went back to Walmart to get a refund. Walmart refused to give us a refund, even thought the card was never activated. Verizon lamely claimed that it was not their card.
Basically this becomes a scam. You should be able to get a refund when you find out in a reasonable period of time that the terms and conditions of use are reprehensible.
My biggest outrage over this is that if VERIZON has their name plastered all over the card, then it becomes their responsibility. But unfortunately we seem to live in a business environment were corporations feel they can mislead the public with impunity.
Like the posts on the pre-settlement agreements there appears to be no penalty for adding a bogus charges to see if they are "overlooked". When caught, "sorry about that", give a refund and institute new bogus charges. Without a penalty what is to stop this practice?
Sprint was caught doing this type of activity too. We were not able to get a refund since you had to be a current Sprint customer. Based on the NYT article, it looks like the Verizon folks are getting a slightly better deal.
"Verizon said in its statement that the customers would receive credits from $2 to $6 on their October or November bills or, in the case of former customers, refund checks." (emphasis added)
One more article documenting the incremental demise of "Sale" where the seller claims a perpetual post-sale right over the product. We increasingly see assertions that products are never really "bought", but merely leased or licensed.
While it is good to see some people questioning the current state of copyright, the article by Pamela Samuelson misses a very critical concept; that copyright was only meant for a limited time to further the progress of the arts and sciences. In reading Ms. Samuelson article, the casual reader may come to the realization that copyright is out-of-whack but they won't realize that it was never meant to be a toll-booth to collect revenue.
By failing to get back to the basics of copyright in her article, Ms. Samuelson does not provide us with good entry point for arguing how copyright can be improved. For example she makes the statement that: "Moreover, virtually every firm today has some copyright asset it wants to protect, such as a logo, an advertising motif, software, databases or website content." The preceding statement is not a valid use of copyright; so if a pundit allows it to pass as an acceptable use; how do we refute it???????
I liked the brochure I got from BOA that offered a bunch of friendly hints on how the customer can save on fees. Well,if BOA is so concerned about the customer's welfare, as the brochure would imply, there is a simple solution. BOA does not have to charge these fees.
We are rapidly moving to a "planned economy" similar to the old USSR. The difference; instead of a bureaucrat idly establishing production goals, we have tax "incentives" to encourage production. So, maybe the old communists will have the last laugh after all.
The industry can get behind some massive DRM scheme that involves significant research, development standards, compliance from a gazillion manufactures, but they can't figure out how to make standard power plugs or print cartridges!!! Give me a break.
On the post: The Impossible Job Of Being The Copyright Czar
Come Again?
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For: China Learning To Use Other Country's Patent Systems
Obvious!!!
On the post: Telco Opposition To Anti-Bill Shock Plans Doesn't Pass The Laugh Test
Customer Responsibility??
One of my daughters was charged, by a bank, for several bounced checks as highlighted by AC where only one check should really have bounced. Even that was debatable since she claimed that she had deposited a check to cover her balance.
We need to realize that this is not simply a case of consumers being responsible, it is a case of the companies gaming the system for their benefit. So lets put the blame where it belongs, on the corporations.
On the post: Telco Opposition To Anti-Bill Shock Plans Doesn't Pass The Laugh Test
Farcical
Today, on the Glenn Beck show, Glenn had a long monologue on restoring honesty to the US. What is troubling, is that many erstwhile Libertarians when it comes to deceptive business practices never seem actually acknowledge that those misleading business practices are part of what is wrong with the US. They can only shrilly scream the single minded mantra that government regulation is "bad", while refusing to accept the concept that these businesses are being dishonest. For the anti-regulation crowd, if a business cannot conduct itself responsibly they should loose their freedom to operate without regulation. Freedom is not a license to steal.
On the post: Canon Creates Keyword-Based DRM For Copy Machines?
Another Challange for the Innovative Hacker
Not only that, what about the administrative overhead of maintaining a list of authorized/prohibited words. The first group to get aggravated would probably be the lawyers photocopying their infringement letters and lawsuits.
On the post: Red Bull Cancels Stunt Dive From Space... Because Someone Sued Then Claiming It Was His Idea
Keep Trying Till You Win
On the post: We've Already Surpassed Last Year's Patent Totals
Gosh, the US is Innovative
(sarcasm)
On the post: More Comics About Copyright
Balance is Expansive
While times and circumstances change, we still need to look back at the original intent of copyright and patent law to determine an appropriate "balance" based on that philosophy, not the bastardized "balance" of today.
On the post: Warner Bros. Claims That Annoying Customers With 28-Day Rental Delay Is Working
Re: The Power of You
On the post: Warner Bros. Claims That Annoying Customers With 28-Day Rental Delay Is Working
The Power of You
What seems to missing from this 28 rental delay discussion is the concept of restraint of trade, or something similar. With the free-market companies are not supposed to collude to restrict consumer actions. This type of collusion along with ever more onerous so-called intellectual property is reducing the consumer to a "managed" revenue unit.
On the post: Bill Introduced To Ban Home Resale Fees
The concept of "Sale" is Being Eliminated
On the post: Verizon Wireless To Pay $90 Million Back To Users For $1.99 Data Fees It Insisted It Never Wrongly Charged
Re: Bullshit they didn't know!
Basically this becomes a scam. You should be able to get a refund when you find out in a reasonable period of time that the terms and conditions of use are reprehensible.
My biggest outrage over this is that if VERIZON has their name plastered all over the card, then it becomes their responsibility. But unfortunately we seem to live in a business environment were corporations feel they can mislead the public with impunity.
On the post: Verizon Wireless To Pay $90 Million Back To Users For $1.99 Data Fees It Insisted It Never Wrongly Charged
No Real Disincentive for this type of activity.
Sprint was caught doing this type of activity too. We were not able to get a refund since you had to be a current Sprint customer. Based on the NYT article, it looks like the Verizon folks are getting a slightly better deal.
"Verizon said in its statement that the customers would receive credits from $2 to $6 on their October or November bills or, in the case of former customers, refund checks." (emphasis added)
On the post: Home Buyers Only Finding Out About Resale Fees When It's Too Late
The concept of "Sale" is Being Eliminated
Recently CNET ran this disturbing article: The end of software ownership--and why to smile. There is nothing to smile about.
On the post: More People Thinking About Smart Copyright Reform
Missing the Original Intent of Copyright
By failing to get back to the basics of copyright in her article, Ms. Samuelson does not provide us with good entry point for arguing how copyright can be improved. For example she makes the statement that: "Moreover, virtually every firm today has some copyright asset it wants to protect, such as a logo, an advertising motif, software, databases or website content." The preceding statement is not a valid use of copyright; so if a pundit allows it to pass as an acceptable use; how do we refute it???????
On the post: BofA Patents A Way Of Denying Overdraft Fee Refunds
Well they Don't Have to Charge and Overdraft Fee!
On the post: Rep. Darrell Issa Worried That Strict Copyright Laws Are Stifling Competition And Innovation
Re: Re: Re: One Can Only Hope
On the post: Intel Confirms HDCP Master Key Is Out
Re: Re: The Hypocracy
On the post: Rep. Darrell Issa Worried That Strict Copyright Laws Are Stifling Competition And Innovation
One Can Only Hope
On the post: Intel Confirms HDCP Master Key Is Out
The Hypocracy
Next >>