Is revealing online passwords the next drug test? Taking drugs is illegal and testing for drug use is not. How is this different? How is scanning one's Facebook stream not "testing" for illegal activity?
I'm not in favor of giving passwords out. I wouldn't apply to a job that asked me to give that information out or told me not to change my password. But that's my choice. And I could refuse a drug test for employment if I wanted to - and not be offered the job as a result.
I'm all in favor of the ACLU successfully challenging a rule that I think will only serve to reduce the number of qualified applicants available to the MD Correctional System. But how is this social media test any different than a drug test?
I don't think this guy is going to get the rewards he felt he'd get. Legal fees, bad press, probably some nasty things said about him, and loss of business is what he'll get for being so cruel and thoughtless. Not licensing fees.
He's trying damage control on his blog. There aren't any comments so he's blocking them or no one has thought to reach out to him that way. But the Tucson Weekly has quite a few people calling him some choice words.
Not so strict, though. The thing about Apple's products is while there are restrictions, they are not always applicable.
Apple's products let you work with MP3 which you can transfer. They don't sell DRM'd songs anymore (although watermarked) but you can transfer songs from your PC to your Mac and your iPhone/iPad/iPod.
So the only backlash they are feeling are from those who don't like their business model. But that model does include freedom for the consumer. And they offer more freedom than I could get from Nokia's offering.
Somehow, I don't think Bieber fans want to see his movie for the "plot."
FACT: I saw a 30 second preview of nearly every movie I've seen and figured out the plot. It made me want to see the movie in the first place.
ALSO FACT: I've read review articles in the paper and online and watched them on the evening news and ALSO understood the plot. Sometimes, I saw the movie.
Seeing a 30 second clip isn't going to stop paying customers from paying. They either want to see the movie or don't. But I bet you'd get more people seeing the movie than people deciding against seeing the movie after watching a 30 second clip.
I wonder what the kids would say if someone told them they were guilty of the crime of pirating a Bieber movie clip.
I wonder what the parents would say if the cops told them their kids were held at the station for copyright infringement.
I’m willing to bet both sets would look at them like they had two heads. Neither the kids or parents would think it a crime to send a movie clip of a life experience to their friends in that way.
And I dare anyone to jail a child for filming a Bieber clip.
But the real thing to take away is this: the law isn’t just taking a long time to catch up to social norms, the law and the social norms are heading in exactly the opposite direction.
Not every personal invention is private. A person's website is generally public and some company can claim they own a patent on something they independently developed. So if they solved a problem with some code they developed, but it was already invented by some other company, they're a target.
I hate to be the one to point this out to you (not really) but one's laziness and the desire to do something with less work is, in fact, a need. An invention can fill that need to so something with less energy. Of course, it doesn't stop at physical energy.
And your hammer example is really bad because anyone who's used a hammer before knows it doesn't save your fingers from getting mashed. :-/
Its an old but true saying. The incentive to innovate doesn't come from a patent. It comes from a specific need. The cave people didn't have patents and yet they invented tools just fine. And they innovated, too. They actually shared that information and things got lighter, sharper, stronger. We taught others to fish and developed better tools to do so. That shared knowledge actually allowed our brains to grow (perhaps too big) and migrate to vast regions of the globe.
So any argument that invention or innovation would stop if you got rid of patents is the silliest idea ever. As much as I appreciate long studies proving that in economic models, any anthropologist could have told you that from their own (probably long) studies.
They want you to say that more tax breaks or stimulus money for starting a company is the key to innovation. Its easy to do and it makes them sound effective for the next 2 - 4 years.
They can't innovate and solve problems on their own. What makes you think they want to do anything but cut checks?
Its no wonder why some people fly to Europe for special treatments for disease. A combination of price and general availability combined with the FDA's review process (where it is slow to review some treatments but quick to approve others) helps ensure America's average lifespan continues to decline.
I'm convinced that breakthrough innovation is dead in America. Its all about lazy & protective laws to feed a cash cow. And I hope that true progress takes place in Europe but I'm sure that once they get to where we are now, they'll fold, too, and patent up and slow medical breakthroughs down to a crawl.
Booker has been tweeting for a while so while the extra ordinary actions he's taken (like personally buying diapers) might be thought of a political move, it doesn't sound outwardly as such. He's gone out of his way to help others before so this only reenforces the idea he's there to solve problems. Other neighboring cities have had similar problems and no communication and the response has been appropriately critical.
Hoboken, for example, has had a rash of issues. Their mayor isn't in town and is leaving others to communicate a response to the people. So there is no help, no direct communication, and no expectation things will get better any time soon. And they're are a significantly smaller city. But the negative reaction is loud and far reaching.
True, this was a unique storm. Many eateries in downtown Manhattan ( at least FiDi, anyway) were closed Monday and Tuesday because they couldn't get their deliveries in the morning. But the immediate response to not being prepared shouldn't be blame, ignorance, and inaction. Address the immediate problem and and better prepare for the future.
It seems as if Booker is at least doing one of those two things.
I probably should have said "can" or "have the chance to" make a fantastic living.
But where I was going with it was, in an ideal world, everyone should be making a fantastic living - "fantastic" being a relative figure that suggests more than average without being obscene. But "should" doesn't mean "will" or "obliged." Something I could have been better at explaining.
But my intent wasn't to ignore the fact that not everyone can or will earn a fantastic living from creating and I'm you pointed out that distinction because its something the entitlement society we discuss here feels differently about.
I'll take the bait and try to explain to Anon what's obvious to others.
The first cartoon talks about how fans want to reward the artist - and only the artist - for their work. Huge corporations are usually the "enemy" of the youth where as music one way to rebel against the establishment. When denied the ability to choose between supporting the artist or the evil corporation, they choose the artist. But if the only choice is the corporation or nothing, nothing is the lesser of the evil here.
In second cartoon, the she's talking about the hypocrisy of the generalized artist and record label proponent. The fan wants to give a small fee as a token of appreciation - a direct contribution to the artist. But that token of appreciation is rejected and the performer asks that they buy a CD instead even though they earn less money that way. This, of course, costs more than the fan is willing to give. In that situation everyone loses. The fan doesn't support the artist. And the artist earns nothing.
And lastly, my favorite of the three showcased here (but there are many more good ones at her website), cuts at the heart of the establishment society that seems pervasive in the content industries. The gall in the assumption that you're automatically owed something is confusing at best and simply arrogant at worst. If I never asked you to record a song, that means I don't want it. And why should I be forced to pay for it? Everyone understands some people get into the music business to make money - no one is saying they shouldn't earn a fantastic living. But the assumption that you're automatically owed money for a piece of work is preposterous - especially since some people didn't want that in the first place. And to call someone a thief for not paying is just crazy - which is what people are called when they choose not to pay for something they didn't want in the first place. Its not rhetoric at all.
There is no assumption by anyone in this audience that a previous investment wasn't made. But there is no way to force a fan to behave to the limited business model of yesteryear. And there is no reasonable justification for forcing someone to pay for something they simply didn't ask for. It sounds like extortion if you put it that way.
But since you didn't rebuff the cartoons with specifics, I can't see your side of the story. Come back with logical observation before you blindly and cowardly assume everyone is just "taking."
Don't just look at the music (or recording) industry and say they're in a monoculture. Look higher and you'll find they already have diversified.
Take Sony, for example. Under the umbrella of Sony comes Sony Music, Sony Pictures, Sony Television, etc. NBC Universal is similar.
Shifts in music shouldn't affect the group as a whole because TV or movies would do well enough. Add game studios and other entertainment companies and you've got a diversified portfolio.
I guess they'll all have to get into the bandwidth game a la Comcast/NBC and double dip that way: sell the content and the bandwidth to download it. Its their old business turned into the information age equivalent.
Remember how YouTube removes videos from artists due to a complaint from the copyright holder when it was the artist or the official account for that artist posting them?
How can anyone expect one hand to talk to the other?
The RIAA and MPAA must be the biggest ponzi scheme of them all. Get your clients to sent content to websites in the hopes of promoting sales then argue there's piracy on the web robbing them of their revenue.
Is it me or does it seem that the Obama administration has done more harm to our Constitutional rights than the past presidents? With all the treaties and laws being discussed that increase IP laws, unreasonable search tactics at airports, due process violations, and blatant censorship, it seems as if I'm less free than I was 2 years ago - and I was less free then as opposed to 8 years before.
Does anyone have an example of Obama fighting for our rights? You would think the EFF and ACLU would be filing less lawsuits against the government but it seems as if they're pulling double time keeping up with the craziness.
I'm a little shocked and disappointed his administration is taking such an anti-consumer, anti-rights stance.
Its as if the FBI equates "would be if" terrorists equally with actual threats. A "would be if" person is someone who would be something if they could only... Otherwise, they're normal people who don't act on anything. They complain, maybe, but never enough to do something.
Throw the keys to a Lamborghini to someone who can only afford a used Pinto and say have at it... they're going to take you up on your offer. They now have that opportunity they wouldn't have otherwise had.
The FBI profiles the wrong people. They assume that all wanna bes are equal threats. If they feel someone is talking the talk - investigate. But if they don't have the determination, means, or connections to carry out something serious... monitor but don't waste real resources on an arrest that takes their eyes off the real ball.
But maybe that's why they're the "Intelligence" and I'm not.
At some point, affected groups are going to take more proactive steps to get the medicine they need. I can understand why people would want to petition to get the drug approved - its a nice way of dealing with a bad situation. it didn't work and an appeal on the petition isn't likely to do much either.
But if I knew someone affected by Fabry disease, I'd sue the NIH for negligence. By passing on the petition, they acted negligently which contributed to the continued suffering and death for thousands.
I hate legal remedies like that - its not supposed to be this way - but since playing nice didn't work, its one time I hope they force others into action.
I disagree. It's the service. Subscriptions are simple and easy. One price, one product. You choose your plan and that's it. Simplicity is part of the service.
Second, their customer service is fantastic. If they nickel and dimed their customers, they wouldn't be so successful.
Third, they designed their interface to be as simple and user friendly as possible. Their APIs let 3rd party developers create their own interface - which adds value to the service.
Fourth, the convenience; it's also a part of the service. Streaming is on demand - a service people love which adds value. But the queue is a fantastic way to "set and forget." Add movies as you can and they're sent in that order. There's little thinking involved. If a title is rented out, the next movie in line shows up. No fuss, no lines, no travel time, no store clerks to deal with, no stress. Easy. Valuable.
Netflix loves the subscription method because its constant money. Blockbuster has to kick, scream, and fight for someone to walk into their (expensive to maintain) stores. Target, Best Buy, and others - including Amazon - have to do the same to get buyers. They don't get a constant revenue stream from customers and its easy to see why Netflix has had an easier time of it. The whole business model is setup for success.
And as long as their service is the best, people will pay reasonable fees to them. And I would venture there are plenty of users who willingly pay more than $15 a month. BTW, does anyone know if Netflix discloses their average subscription dollar amount in their 10k filings? I'm sure it could be calculated if it isn't.
On the post: Maryland Corrections Agency Demanding All Social Media Passwords Of Potential Hires
Drug Test?
I'm not in favor of giving passwords out. I wouldn't apply to a job that asked me to give that information out or told me not to change my password. But that's my choice. And I could refuse a drug test for employment if I wanted to - and not be offered the job as a result.
I'm all in favor of the ACLU successfully challenging a rule that I think will only serve to reduce the number of qualified applicants available to the MD Correctional System. But how is this social media test any different than a drug test?
On the post: Maryland Corrections Agency Demanding All Social Media Passwords Of Potential Hires
Re: Setup fake/dummy account?
On the post: Photographer Who Took Family Portrait Of Girl Shot In Tucson Suing Media For Using The Photo
Streisand Effect
He's trying damage control on his blog. There aren't any comments so he's blocking them or no one has thought to reach out to him that way. But the Tucson Weekly has quite a few people calling him some choice words.
I have my own that I'll keep to myself.
On the post: Death Of Nokia's 'Comes With Music' Shows That 'Free' With DRM Is A Losing Proposition
Re: Re:
Apple's products let you work with MP3 which you can transfer. They don't sell DRM'd songs anymore (although watermarked) but you can transfer songs from your PC to your Mac and your iPhone/iPad/iPod.
So the only backlash they are feeling are from those who don't like their business model. But that model does include freedom for the consumer. And they offer more freedom than I could get from Nokia's offering.
On the post: Screaming Justin Bieber Fans Using Camera Phones To Capture Snippets Of Movie Premiere Berated For Piracy
Re: But they've now seen the Bieb...
FACT: I saw a 30 second preview of nearly every movie I've seen and figured out the plot. It made me want to see the movie in the first place.
ALSO FACT: I've read review articles in the paper and online and watched them on the evening news and ALSO understood the plot. Sometimes, I saw the movie.
Seeing a 30 second clip isn't going to stop paying customers from paying. They either want to see the movie or don't. But I bet you'd get more people seeing the movie than people deciding against seeing the movie after watching a 30 second clip.
On the post: Screaming Justin Bieber Fans Using Camera Phones To Capture Snippets Of Movie Premiere Berated For Piracy
Opposite Directions
I wonder what the parents would say if the cops told them their kids were held at the station for copyright infringement.
I’m willing to bet both sets would look at them like they had two heads. Neither the kids or parents would think it a crime to send a movie clip of a life experience to their friends in that way.
And I dare anyone to jail a child for filming a Bieber clip.
But the real thing to take away is this: the law isn’t just taking a long time to catch up to social norms, the law and the social norms are heading in exactly the opposite direction.
On the post: When Consumers Innovate To Solve Their Own Needs, Do Patents Just Get In The Way?
Re:
Not every personal invention is private. A person's website is generally public and some company can claim they own a patent on something they independently developed. So if they solved a problem with some code they developed, but it was already invented by some other company, they're a target.
Now that person has to defend against a lawsuit.
On the post: When Consumers Innovate To Solve Their Own Needs, Do Patents Just Get In The Way?
Re: Necessity
And your hammer example is really bad because anyone who's used a hammer before knows it doesn't save your fingers from getting mashed. :-/
On the post: When Consumers Innovate To Solve Their Own Needs, Do Patents Just Get In The Way?
Old Saying
Its an old but true saying. The incentive to innovate doesn't come from a patent. It comes from a specific need. The cave people didn't have patents and yet they invented tools just fine. And they innovated, too. They actually shared that information and things got lighter, sharper, stronger. We taught others to fish and developed better tools to do so. That shared knowledge actually allowed our brains to grow (perhaps too big) and migrate to vast regions of the globe.
So any argument that invention or innovation would stop if you got rid of patents is the silliest idea ever. As much as I appreciate long studies proving that in economic models, any anthropologist could have told you that from their own (probably long) studies.
On the post: The White House Wants Advice On What's Blocking American Innovation
What They Want You To Say
They want you to say that more tax breaks or stimulus money for starting a company is the key to innovation. Its easy to do and it makes them sound effective for the next 2 - 4 years.
They can't innovate and solve problems on their own. What makes you think they want to do anything but cut checks?
On the post: Cures For Paralysis, Diabetes And Blindness Hindered By Patents
Good.
Its no wonder why some people fly to Europe for special treatments for disease. A combination of price and general availability combined with the FDA's review process (where it is slow to review some treatments but quick to approve others) helps ensure America's average lifespan continues to decline.
I'm convinced that breakthrough innovation is dead in America. Its all about lazy & protective laws to feed a cash cow. And I hope that true progress takes place in Europe but I'm sure that once they get to where we are now, they'll fold, too, and patent up and slow medical breakthroughs down to a crawl.
On the post: How Newark Mayor Cory Booker Made All Politics Super Local With Twitter Following The Blizzard
It Matters
Hoboken, for example, has had a rash of issues. Their mayor isn't in town and is leaving others to communicate a response to the people. So there is no help, no direct communication, and no expectation things will get better any time soon. And they're are a significantly smaller city. But the negative reaction is loud and far reaching.
True, this was a unique storm. Many eateries in downtown Manhattan ( at least FiDi, anyway) were closed Monday and Tuesday because they couldn't get their deliveries in the morning. But the immediate response to not being prepared shouldn't be blame, ignorance, and inaction. Address the immediate problem and and better prepare for the future.
It seems as if Booker is at least doing one of those two things.
On the post: Discussing The Music Industry Comically Speaking, With Mimi & Eunice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I probably should have said "can" or "have the chance to" make a fantastic living.
But where I was going with it was, in an ideal world, everyone should be making a fantastic living - "fantastic" being a relative figure that suggests more than average without being obscene. But "should" doesn't mean "will" or "obliged." Something I could have been better at explaining.
But my intent wasn't to ignore the fact that not everyone can or will earn a fantastic living from creating and I'm you pointed out that distinction because its something the entitlement society we discuss here feels differently about.
On the post: Discussing The Music Industry Comically Speaking, With Mimi & Eunice
Re: Re: Re:
The first cartoon talks about how fans want to reward the artist - and only the artist - for their work. Huge corporations are usually the "enemy" of the youth where as music one way to rebel against the establishment. When denied the ability to choose between supporting the artist or the evil corporation, they choose the artist. But if the only choice is the corporation or nothing, nothing is the lesser of the evil here.
In second cartoon, the she's talking about the hypocrisy of the generalized artist and record label proponent. The fan wants to give a small fee as a token of appreciation - a direct contribution to the artist. But that token of appreciation is rejected and the performer asks that they buy a CD instead even though they earn less money that way. This, of course, costs more than the fan is willing to give. In that situation everyone loses. The fan doesn't support the artist. And the artist earns nothing.
And lastly, my favorite of the three showcased here (but there are many more good ones at her website), cuts at the heart of the establishment society that seems pervasive in the content industries. The gall in the assumption that you're automatically owed something is confusing at best and simply arrogant at worst. If I never asked you to record a song, that means I don't want it. And why should I be forced to pay for it? Everyone understands some people get into the music business to make money - no one is saying they shouldn't earn a fantastic living. But the assumption that you're automatically owed money for a piece of work is preposterous - especially since some people didn't want that in the first place. And to call someone a thief for not paying is just crazy - which is what people are called when they choose not to pay for something they didn't want in the first place. Its not rhetoric at all.
There is no assumption by anyone in this audience that a previous investment wasn't made. But there is no way to force a fan to behave to the limited business model of yesteryear. And there is no reasonable justification for forcing someone to pay for something they simply didn't ask for. It sounds like extortion if you put it that way.
But since you didn't rebuff the cartoons with specifics, I can't see your side of the story. Come back with logical observation before you blindly and cowardly assume everyone is just "taking."
On the post: Where Record Labels Ran Into Trouble: Monoculture
Look Higher
Take Sony, for example. Under the umbrella of Sony comes Sony Music, Sony Pictures, Sony Television, etc. NBC Universal is similar.
Shifts in music shouldn't affect the group as a whole because TV or movies would do well enough. Add game studios and other entertainment companies and you've got a diversified portfolio.
I guess they'll all have to get into the bandwidth game a la Comcast/NBC and double dip that way: sell the content and the bandwidth to download it. Its their old business turned into the information age equivalent.
On the post: Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels
No Hands At All
How can anyone expect one hand to talk to the other?
The RIAA and MPAA must be the biggest ponzi scheme of them all. Get your clients to sent content to websites in the hopes of promoting sales then argue there's piracy on the web robbing them of their revenue.
On the post: Yet Another Court Explains To The Obama Administration That The 4th Amendment Means You Need To Get A Warrant
Change... not for the better.
Does anyone have an example of Obama fighting for our rights? You would think the EFF and ACLU would be filing less lawsuits against the government but it seems as if they're pulling double time keeping up with the craziness.
I'm a little shocked and disappointed his administration is taking such an anti-consumer, anti-rights stance.
On the post: FBI 'Thwarts' Another Of Its Own Bomb Plots
Would Be
Throw the keys to a Lamborghini to someone who can only afford a used Pinto and say have at it... they're going to take you up on your offer. They now have that opportunity they wouldn't have otherwise had.
The FBI profiles the wrong people. They assume that all wanna bes are equal threats. If they feel someone is talking the talk - investigate. But if they don't have the determination, means, or connections to carry out something serious... monitor but don't waste real resources on an arrest that takes their eyes off the real ball.
But maybe that's why they're the "Intelligence" and I'm not.
On the post: NIH Won't Let Others Supply Life Saving Drug Even Though Genzyme Can't Make Enough
At some point...
But if I knew someone affected by Fabry disease, I'd sue the NIH for negligence. By passing on the petition, they acted negligently which contributed to the continued suffering and death for thousands.
I hate legal remedies like that - its not supposed to be this way - but since playing nice didn't work, its one time I hope they force others into action.
On the post: Just As Record Labels Resented Apple For Dragging Them Into The Internet Age, Movie Studios Resenting Netflix
Re:
Second, their customer service is fantastic. If they nickel and dimed their customers, they wouldn't be so successful.
Third, they designed their interface to be as simple and user friendly as possible. Their APIs let 3rd party developers create their own interface - which adds value to the service.
Fourth, the convenience; it's also a part of the service. Streaming is on demand - a service people love which adds value. But the queue is a fantastic way to "set and forget." Add movies as you can and they're sent in that order. There's little thinking involved. If a title is rented out, the next movie in line shows up. No fuss, no lines, no travel time, no store clerks to deal with, no stress. Easy. Valuable.
Netflix loves the subscription method because its constant money. Blockbuster has to kick, scream, and fight for someone to walk into their (expensive to maintain) stores. Target, Best Buy, and others - including Amazon - have to do the same to get buyers. They don't get a constant revenue stream from customers and its easy to see why Netflix has had an easier time of it. The whole business model is setup for success.
And as long as their service is the best, people will pay reasonable fees to them. And I would venture there are plenty of users who willingly pay more than $15 a month. BTW, does anyone know if Netflix discloses their average subscription dollar amount in their 10k filings? I'm sure it could be calculated if it isn't.
Next >>