The telephone companies "lie" to the consumer with misleading claims, yet they expect the consumer to abide by their so-called contracts and early termination fees. One could hope that these so-called contracts could be declared void.
The modification of the picture is simply another unfortunate example of the universal presentation of "facts" (by US companies) that when examined clearly demonstrate that the supposed "facts" really aren't there. In the case of Goldman Sachs: "The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Goldman, Sachs & Co. and one of its vice presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter."
Haven't you noticed that the laws are becoming ever more onerous. Seems that the real whiners are those buying from Congress ever "stronger" laws in the name of fighting piracy. Funny how they never seem to be satiated.
And how long will that last? Other countries will soon be producing their own IP. Guess what,they will want us to pay them! End the end, this is going to bad for the US.
Well others are noticing that the concept of "sale" is being eliminated. ""Ownership" is starting to change its meaning.".
We still need to go a step further with this concept. Content producers are "stealing" your rights to use a product. It time for us to recognize that when you buy content, some of the rights associated with the content are transferred to the buyer.
This is a really good post that begins to explore what is below the surface of the net neutrality debate.
First, if our free-economic system is so great, why do I hear rumblings in other posts and articles that our internet is less robust than other countries?
Second, those who provide the internet/telecommunication services in our country whine that they need "freedom" to implement robust services. Yet they fail to provide any actual promise of commitment. Are we simply supposed magically accept the premise that "freedom" will somehow result in a robust internet? Getting back to point one, given the current "freedom" to implement, why are we apparently continuing to fall further behind? Seems that they are more about spewing out empty promises than actually providing a service.
Third, What would be interesting to read is why the countries that are ahead of us, are ahead of us? Could it be that socialistic regulation would actually be good!!!!!!
Sounds good and is an admirable goal, but what about the unintended consequences of no regulation. Do you really trust the private sector? Be careful of what you ask for!
The anecdotal evidence is that the private sector will bastardize net neutrality to extort further profits. The mantra of less government regulation is simply another populist example of giving corporations the unintended "freedom" to lie and steal.
If you want less government, demand that the corporations provide some substantial promises that they won't break net neutrality. It's about time that those who want freedom from government regulation behave ethically. Freedom is not a license to steal.
While the purpose of this post is discussing the article "Patent Office Plans Could Kill Small Company Innovation", the lingering fundamental question is the legitimacy of the patents applications being made.
To quote from the article "The agency can’t add people fast enough to whittle down the pile. There are only two choices: lower standards and grant more patents to reduce the pressure or find ways to drastically cut back the number of applications.". The pile could probably be wittled down quite rapidly if all the absurd patents were tossed out.
Alas, instead of questioning the validity of patent applications, we simply legitimize the submission of questionable patents which increases the workload.
This is simply another example of "financial innovation" running amok. Previously we had the creation of CDOs which began to unravel. In doing so, it turned out that the holders of the CDOs could not even figure out who actually owed them the money because the underlying securities were sliced-up and re-sliced as to be unrecognizable. Truly a black box.
Now we have people writing psychic programs to "sense" the anticipated movement of a stock. Unfortunately it looks like someone may have created a positive feedback loop. Oops!
My point, given the freedom to innovate, these companies should exhibit a degree of self control and ethical behavior. These "people" in their self-serving greed don't seem to care that their mistakes could destroy our economy and the lives of others. Given this greed, I'm probably on the wrong planet with my recommendation!
Once Again The Claim that One Party Can Restrict the Freedom of Another
The RIAA and its ilk claim that the ISPs must filter internet traffic to protect their interests. Now we have a legal firm asserting that they can sue you but you can't talk about it!
The privacy debate, I find somewhat mischaracterized since it is privacy as a concept is unrealistic. We need to approach it from the perspective that companies do NOT have a right to contact you without your permission and they do not have a right to your personal information after your business transaction has been completed.
I like this gloom and doom quote from The Hill. The quote below points to what is wrong with how we view privacy and why legislation to supposedly protect your privacy will never work. Companies do NOT have a right to your information nor do they have a right to always be-in-your-face to sell you something.
“It would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs in America, and it would disproportionately put small publications out of business, because consumers won’t opt in,” said Zaneis, who later noted a series of positive aspects of the current legislation. His organization, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, represents 375 organizations and includes such members as Microsoft, Google and a host of publishing firms.
Great distinction: "In the 21st century we pay for communication separately from production." As you have pointed out the market for copies has ended, but the market for the production of content still exists.
The regular press (New York Times) is up in arms concerning the passage of a bill in Arizona regarding illegal immigration. The Times writes "A fight is brewing over Arizona’s new law that turns all of the state’s Latinos, even legal immigrants and citizens, into criminal suspects." (emphasis added). What's the connection to proposed IP enforcement?
The regular press wails about the loss of liberties for selected special interests and demands with deep indignation that action be undertaken to protect our precious freedoms. Now when it comes to proposed oppressive IP regulations (created at the behest of certain special interests) that will potentially deprive all US citizens of some of their freedoms while granting special protected privileges to the special interest behind the legislation; the media is strangely silent. Don't have your "passport" to prove your "citizenship" to a piece of content, off to jail.
Why is it that when a new technology is introduced that there is an immediate claim that this mandates a "new" license for which we have to cough up even more money. Along these lines, Mike wrote a while back Will The Authors Guild Freak Out About Text To Speech On The iPad?. I fail to see basis for claiming that an IP property right is somehow expanded just because a new technology comes along. What about the property rights of the consumer?
When something is produced it should carry a generic license that allows the product to be used as the consumer sees fit. After all, the consumer has bought the rights to use the product. This consumer rights shouldn't be artificially segmented and capriciously diminished by the copyright holder. For example, expanding the concept of public performance: Irish Collection Society Wants Hotels To Pay Performance Fees For Music Played In Guest Rooms. If I recall correctly, there was even a case where the claim was made that playing music to barnyard animals was considered a "public performance". The consistent expansion of "licensing" as a property rights land grab to the detriment of the consumer is another example of how copyright, as a concept, has morphed into nothing more than an extortion racket.
You wrote: "it becomes less and less financially viable to produce new content". Then the new content should not be produced! Simple.
The free market is not about propping up a business model. If it is uneconomic to produce something in the existing business environment, including so-called piracy, then it should not be produced.
You also neglect the fact that those who believe in so-called intellectual property are expanding their onerous claims to the revenue stream. So the real "theft" occurs when they "steal" rights from the consumer.
New York Times Article. Poorly written, but at least it is a recognition, in the Times, that DMCA can be used in an abusive manner. Gasp! They even reached out to quote TechDirt. Amazing to see a New York Times article that even acknowledges the existence of those opposed to so-called "intellectual property".
The money simply goes into another economic use. Instead of going to the artist who buys a car, the "pirate" saves the money an buys the car.
Furthermore, we continuously fail to ask the question of whether the artist is even entitled to the money. Compliance with copyright has become an extortion racket, where everyone who uses content is declared a "pirate".
Both copyright and patents are a form of so-called "intellectual property". Why is it that persons who infringe on copyright are being turned into criminals, but those who infringe on patents are not being subject to criminalization?
This is a clear example of the individual (who has virtually no legal clout)not having equivalent legal rights as the corporations. Our legal system, at least to my knowledge, is based on having a level playing field. So it copyright infringement is considered criminal than patent infringement should also be labeled as a criminal act.
Regretfully, our legal system in regards to so-called intellectual property is corrupt. An impoverished single-mother of special special needs children can be fined and arrested but Steve Jobs and Bill Gates can't be. What a justice system!!
Many companies whine, regulation will have the unintended consequence of killing innovation and our ability to provide services that the consumer wants. So I guess, in this case, innovation is the cherished freedom to confuse and overcharge the consumer. Seems to me that the unintended consequence of the freedom from regulation translates into a license to "steal".
Whatever happened to the concept of corporate self-constraint? No one is forcing these companies to implement these excessive charges.
On the post: T-Mobile Claiming '4G Speeds' To Pretend It's Offering 4G
Misleading Advertising and Contracts
On the post: Newspaper Edits Politicians Out Of Bill Signing Photograph; Doesn't Get Why People Think That's Bad
Goldman Sachs Anyone?
As they say, a picture is worth 1000 words.
On the post: Obama Reiterates Support For ACTA, As More People Point Out How Far ACTA Is From The Purpose Of Copyright
On the post: Obama Reiterates Support For ACTA, As More People Point Out How Far ACTA Is From The Purpose Of Copyright
Re: Re: Probably no hope for change...
On the post: Obama Reiterates Support For ACTA, As More People Point Out How Far ACTA Is From The Purpose Of Copyright
Re: Probably no hope for change...
On the post: Actor Explains Why He Downloads Unauthorized Content... Including Movies He's In
The Concept of Sale Being Eliminated
We still need to go a step further with this concept. Content producers are "stealing" your rights to use a product. It time for us to recognize that when you buy content, some of the rights associated with the content are transferred to the buyer.
Consumers have property rights too!
On the post: Lessons From The US's First Broadband Plan... In 1808
Reality versus Preception
First, if our free-economic system is so great, why do I hear rumblings in other posts and articles that our internet is less robust than other countries?
Second, those who provide the internet/telecommunication services in our country whine that they need "freedom" to implement robust services. Yet they fail to provide any actual promise of commitment. Are we simply supposed magically accept the premise that "freedom" will somehow result in a robust internet? Getting back to point one, given the current "freedom" to implement, why are we apparently continuing to fall further behind? Seems that they are more about spewing out empty promises than actually providing a service.
Third, What would be interesting to read is why the countries that are ahead of us, are ahead of us? Could it be that socialistic regulation would actually be good!!!!!!
On the post: Net Neutrality Battle Gets Silly... Astroturfers, Sock Puppets, Student Projects, Overwritten Word Docs... Oh My
Re: Net Neutrality
The anecdotal evidence is that the private sector will bastardize net neutrality to extort further profits. The mantra of less government regulation is simply another populist example of giving corporations the unintended "freedom" to lie and steal.
If you want less government, demand that the corporations provide some substantial promises that they won't break net neutrality. It's about time that those who want freedom from government regulation behave ethically. Freedom is not a license to steal.
On the post: USPTO Ramping Up Patent Approvals
Question the Legitimacy of Patent Applications
To quote from the article "The agency can’t add people fast enough to whittle down the pile. There are only two choices: lower standards and grant more patents to reduce the pressure or find ways to drastically cut back the number of applications.". The pile could probably be wittled down quite rapidly if all the absurd patents were tossed out.
Alas, instead of questioning the validity of patent applications, we simply legitimize the submission of questionable patents which increases the workload.
On the post: Momentary Financial Crisis... And A Lesson In Unintended Consequences
Complex Systems Are Prone to Failure
Now we have people writing psychic programs to "sense" the anticipated movement of a stock. Unfortunately it looks like someone may have created a positive feedback loop. Oops!
My point, given the freedom to innovate, these companies should exhibit a degree of self control and ethical behavior. These "people" in their self-serving greed don't seem to care that their mistakes could destroy our economy and the lives of others. Given this greed, I'm probably on the wrong planet with my recommendation!
On the post: Post Semi-Nude Photos Of Celebs Doing Drugs... Get Hit With C&D That You Can't Show Anyone
Once Again The Claim that One Party Can Restrict the Freedom of Another
On the post: Draft Of Privacy Bill Introduced... And Pretty Much Everyone Hates It
Privacy belogns to the Receiptient
I like this gloom and doom quote from The Hill. The quote below points to what is wrong with how we view privacy and why legislation to supposedly protect your privacy will never work. Companies do NOT have a right to your information nor do they have a right to always be-in-your-face to sell you something.
“It would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs in America, and it would disproportionately put small publications out of business, because consumers won’t opt in,” said Zaneis, who later noted a series of positive aspects of the current legislation. His organization, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, represents 375 organizations and includes such members as Microsoft, Google and a host of publishing firms.
On the post: The Economist Warns That Newspapers Putting Up Paywalls May Create Newspaper 'Pirates'
Re: Re: newspaper pirates
On the post: White House Releases Public Comments On IP Enforcement
Unequal and Selective Rights
The regular press wails about the loss of liberties for selected special interests and demands with deep indignation that action be undertaken to protect our precious freedoms. Now when it comes to proposed oppressive IP regulations (created at the behest of certain special interests) that will potentially deprive all US citizens of some of their freedoms while granting special protected privileges to the special interest behind the legislation; the media is strangely silent. Don't have your "passport" to prove your "citizenship" to a piece of content, off to jail.
On the post: Random House Realizing That Its Old Contracts Don't Cover Ebooks
Land Grab
When something is produced it should carry a generic license that allows the product to be used as the consumer sees fit. After all, the consumer has bought the rights to use the product. This consumer rights shouldn't be artificially segmented and capriciously diminished by the copyright holder. For example, expanding the concept of public performance: Irish Collection Society Wants Hotels To Pay Performance Fees For Music Played In Guest Rooms. If I recall correctly, there was even a case where the claim was made that playing music to barnyard animals was considered a "public performance". The consistent expansion of "licensing" as a property rights land grab to the detriment of the consumer is another example of how copyright, as a concept, has morphed into nothing more than an extortion racket.
On the post: Justice Dept. Boosts Number Of FBI Agents, Attorneys Focusing On Copyright Infringement
Idiotic Economics
The free market is not about propping up a business model. If it is uneconomic to produce something in the existing business environment, including so-called piracy, then it should not be produced.
You also neglect the fact that those who believe in so-called intellectual property are expanding their onerous claims to the revenue stream. So the real "theft" occurs when they "steal" rights from the consumer.
On the post: Hitler Rants Video About DMCA Takedowns Is Taken Down Itself
New York Times Article
Twitter, DMCA Take-Downs & the Prior Restraint of First Amendment Speech
On the post: New Zealand Moves Forward With Three Strikes; Big Questions Left Unanswered
Parable of the broken window
The money simply goes into another economic use. Instead of going to the artist who buys a car, the "pirate" saves the money an buys the car.
Furthermore, we continuously fail to ask the question of whether the artist is even entitled to the money. Compliance with copyright has become an extortion racket, where everyone who uses content is declared a "pirate".
On the post: New Zealand Moves Forward With Three Strikes; Big Questions Left Unanswered
IP Protection Duplicity
This is a clear example of the individual (who has virtually no legal clout)not having equivalent legal rights as the corporations. Our legal system, at least to my knowledge, is based on having a level playing field. So it copyright infringement is considered criminal than patent infringement should also be labeled as a criminal act.
Regretfully, our legal system in regards to so-called intellectual property is corrupt. An impoverished single-mother of special special needs children can be fined and arrested but Steve Jobs and Bill Gates can't be. What a justice system!!
On the post: Confused Users Keep Racking Up Ridiculous 3G Bills, Wireless Carriers Keep Helping Them
The Freedom to Innovate
Whatever happened to the concept of corporate self-constraint? No one is forcing these companies to implement these excessive charges.
Next >>