First, there is the issue of the law (illegality). When laws clearly serve a special interest and not the society as a whole, the law itself is "bad". Consequently, downloading stuff that some claim is "illegal" can still be ethical because the law itself is unethical.
Second, I don't have a problem with paying for a hard back then paying again for a paper back. These are physical products that have a cost of production associated with them. Now if I have a CD and want to load a song onto my computer or my MP3 player, that is a fair use. When one buys a product such as a CD, one should have an entitlement to use the content as they wish. (Of course I will agree that using the content as you wish, does not meaning copying and selling).
Third, the claim that a content owner has a toll-both entitlement to post-sale control over a product is ridiculous. After all why should a content producer be perpetually paid again and again for something they did not produce. Unfortunately it seems that the public mindlessly accepts the false premise of unearned rights and the concept of fair use seems to be fighting an uphill battle. When you buy content, you have a PROPERTY RIGHT to use that content. Society and the law should recognize that right.
Be careful of what you ask for. As has been pointed out on this and other forums, if you can't innovate take legal action. Clearly this is a losing strategy. The hand writing is on the wall.
A person commenting on this NYT article logically pointed out that research related jobs in the US will eventually migrate to those countries doing the manufacturing. China may now be starting to enforce its own version of protecting its so called intellectual property. (note, their economic leverage in owning our debt too)
My point, if we pursue a self-serving strategy of draconian enforcement of so-called intellectual property we, as a nation, may eventually find ourselves at the loosing end. We may soon be paying China licensing rights to use their so-called intellectual property!
My apologies. Sometimes, before commenting, read the WHOLE post and then read it again. I guess, I missed the implications of: => "The scary part is, some people actually believe what I just typed above..."
What is the information source for your comment that "no public tax dollars ever EVER went into private ISP lines." I expect that there is a lot of private/public interaction. These lines are also being placed in many cases in public rights-of-way.
Another issue that tends to be overlooked by many who raise the "private ISP line" is that you are hiring the ISP to deliver your packets. So if you pay the ISP $X per month for internet access, would you accept the premise that the ISP has no obligation to actually deliver your packets. Imagine you go to the UPS store an pay to have a package delivered, but its inconvenient for the UPS to deliver it so they simply toss the package in the garbage.
The internet lines may be "private" but the ISPs have an obligation to serve you. It is not really their money, you have paid them through your subscription to their service.
While it is good to exam all options, the problem is that acknowledging an option that would legitimize software patents carries the implicit acknowledgment that software patents have legal standing. From that point it is a downhill slide to patenting even the smallest segment of code. Look at how copyright has become evermore onerous, covers more and more, and is almost now "perpetual".
We have Time Warner Cable. One of their perpetual advertising tag lines: "The Power of You". Well, how are they empowering me by entering into exclusive business deals that would limit my options and force me to pay them monopoly rents?
Yet another example of companies claiming they are empowering consumer choice by actually limiting it. Orwell would be proud.
Apple has done something that other content distributors seemingly have not been able to emulate. That is hardware that is Apple ready.
I have been looking to get a desktop radio for the house and did buy a new radio for my car. One of the features I was looking for is USB connectivity since the CD is "dead". Virtually every radio with a USB port carried the logo "iPod compatible". Additionally there is the exclusive deal AT&T and Apple struck for the iPhone.
In researching the USB connectivity (yes the USB drives work) my daughters Samsung MP3 player would not work through the USB port, but did work through the "axillary in".
The point, Apple has gone to the trouble of laying the marketing road in anticipation of releasing its products. They also, unlike Microsoft, seem to have created a loyal fan base.
Complexity is an issue with large corporations that have legacy products, but I don't think that the concept of "complexity" is the fundamental rationale for why they go astray. Corporations, like humans, evolve. When they start they are small, entrepreneurial, and aggressive. As they become older and established protecting the business becomes an ever greater concern. I will agree that established businesses become increasingly "complex", but that complexity simply adds to internal friction (its a lot harder to build census). While the company may be "complex", the mindset of the management will tend to be focused on maintaining (protecting) the business model.
It is the mindset of management that determines whether a company will adapt or be led astray.
Lawyers are supposed to know the law, they also get paid big bucks for performing. It astounds me at the number of simple mistakes lawyers make, such as missing a deadline. Not only that but they are sloppy, some lawyers like to use intimidation rather than using the law in a correct manner. Makes you sick. No wonder our country is going down.
While the murals are not being sold, what the Post Office is doing exemplifies a growing issue; that is people and companies believe that they retain a perpetual "control" over products/content. Russian WWII Veterans Asked To Pay Up For Singing Old War Songs
????????? "The purpose of ACTA is to establish international standards to combat counterfeiting and piracy. All the negotiation sessions are conducted in secrecy and the details are not revealed by any of the participating nations at all. Initially, public didn’t even know who the participating nations are exactly! I wonder why negotiations which involve intellectual property laws should be kept secret!" TechDirt has published numerous similar articles concerning the lack of transparency.
It seems that the proposed legislation is the "WRONG" solution.
According to the article: "We can no longer ignore the threat to sensitive government information, businesses, and consumers that insecure peer-to-peer networks pose," Towns said in the statement. "Securing federal computer files is critical to our national security."
If the real concern is security, then the obvious solution would be to have your IT department develop a secure computer. Passing a law that criminalizes certain behavior fundamentally does not actually improve security.
I guess this is a case of putting lipstick on a pig and hoping that nobody will notice.
It common sense that the content industry would "hide" its involvement. For purposes of public consumption the legislation has to be "hidden" behind some lofty motherhood goal such as "national security".
"If they are unable to patent genes then there wouldn't be much motivation."
So what. Theoretically we live in a free-market system. What this means is that products come into existence when there is demand for them. If you invent a product and it is uneconomic, too bad.
You ignore the role of university research. It is quite unfortunate that taxpayer dollars can be used by private entities to patent products that should be in the public domain. See the Bayh-Dole Act
A major concern with class action lawsuits is that the lawyers only get involved if they can make $$$$$. You also have an issue of damages. Where are they? Your email didn't go out, so what?
Whether you realize it or not, your post actually raises a very subtle point of the net-neutrality debate. If the ISPs, such as COX, are not required to provide a neutral internet you will find a lot more "obstructions" than an inability to send email. We need guarantees for a neutral internet.
Actually, as I was writing this, it occurred to me that many of those in the tea party movement are against government involvement in a persons life. While I have no idea concerning your position on government regulation; I find it amusing that you would be complaining about what the company is allowing you to do on "their" network. Many people on the political "right" claim that companies can do whatever they want whenever they want. Customers have no rights. If you are a disgruntled consumer, too bad. Don't use Cox.
Sprint, a few years ago, settled a class action lawsuit for "improper billing". Under the settlement we would have been entitled to a $15.00 refund. We never saw the money.
The catch, you had to be a Sprint customer. By that time, we had dropped Sprint. Sure, we could have "received" our $15.00 had we signed up for a new two year plan (even though we still had the old phone)!
Moreover, even if you were still a Sprint customer; you never actually saw the "refund" since it would appear as a deduction on your future bills.
Settlements such as these demonstrate how ridiculous class action lawsuits are. If the injured party only receives "coupons" that force them to buy from the company that hurt them - that is exactly how the lawyers should be paid; in coupons!
Another issue with class action lawsuits, to my knowledge, their is no commitment on the part of the company in stopping their abusive practices.
Amazing, the New York Times can publish an expose concerning how automating your utility meters raises serious privacy concerns.
But when the content industry proposes that: "The federal government encourage ISPs to use, and companies to develop, monitoring, filtering, blocking, scanning and throttling technologies to combat the flow of unauthorized material online" there is silence.
On the post: Misguided Outrage At NY Times' Ethicist Over Ethics Of Downloading A Book
It isn't that simple
Second, I don't have a problem with paying for a hard back then paying again for a paper back. These are physical products that have a cost of production associated with them. Now if I have a CD and want to load a song onto my computer or my MP3 player, that is a fair use. When one buys a product such as a CD, one should have an entitlement to use the content as they wish. (Of course I will agree that using the content as you wish, does not meaning copying and selling).
Third, the claim that a content owner has a toll-both entitlement to post-sale control over a product is ridiculous. After all why should a content producer be perpetually paid again and again for something they did not produce. Unfortunately it seems that the public mindlessly accepts the false premise of unearned rights and the concept of fair use seems to be fighting an uphill battle. When you buy content, you have a PROPERTY RIGHT to use that content. Society and the law should recognize that right.
On the post: Copyright A Priority For The DOJ; But Identity Fraud Has Fallen Off The List
What Comes Around Goes Around
The New York Times recently ran an article lamenting the loss of US manufacturing/jobs to overseas firms. TechDirt also writes: Careful What You Wish For: Greater IP Enforcement In China Being Used Against Foreign Companies...
A person commenting on this NYT article logically pointed out that research related jobs in the US will eventually migrate to those countries doing the manufacturing. China may now be starting to enforce its own version of protecting its so called intellectual property. (note, their economic leverage in owning our debt too)
My point, if we pursue a self-serving strategy of draconian enforcement of so-called intellectual property we, as a nation, may eventually find ourselves at the loosing end. We may soon be paying China licensing rights to use their so-called intellectual property!
On the post: Court Tells FCC It Has No Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality (And That's A Good Thing)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legislation needed
On the post: Court Tells FCC It Has No Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality (And That's A Good Thing)
Re: Re: Re: Legislation needed
Another issue that tends to be overlooked by many who raise the "private ISP line" is that you are hiring the ISP to deliver your packets. So if you pay the ISP $X per month for internet access, would you accept the premise that the ISP has no obligation to actually deliver your packets. Imagine you go to the UPS store an pay to have a package delivered, but its inconvenient for the UPS to deliver it so they simply toss the package in the garbage.
The internet lines may be "private" but the ISPs have an obligation to serve you. It is not really their money, you have paid them through your subscription to their service.
On the post: Could You Save Software Patents With A Special Team Of 'Obviousness' Developers?
Did Mike Blink?
No software patents.
On the post: NYTimes Ethicist: Not Unethical To Download Unauthorized Copy Of Physical Book You Own
Sanity at the New York Times?
On the post: Blockbuster Using Its Deal With Warner Bros. To Mock Redbox And Netflix
Time Warner Newspeak
Yet another example of companies claiming they are empowering consumer choice by actually limiting it. Orwell would be proud.
On the post: The Fool's Gold At The End Of The iPad Rainbow
Its the Marketing
I have been looking to get a desktop radio for the house and did buy a new radio for my car. One of the features I was looking for is USB connectivity since the CD is "dead". Virtually every radio with a USB port carried the logo "iPod compatible". Additionally there is the exclusive deal AT&T and Apple struck for the iPhone.
In researching the USB connectivity (yes the USB drives work) my daughters Samsung MP3 player would not work through the USB port, but did work through the "axillary in".
The point, Apple has gone to the trouble of laying the marketing road in anticipation of releasing its products. They also, unlike Microsoft, seem to have created a loyal fan base.
On the post: The Siren's Call Of Complexity: How Legacy Businesses Get Led Astray
Complexity Not the Fundamental Problem
It is the mindset of management that determines whether a company will adapt or be led astray.
On the post: Uwe Boll's Mass Automated Copyright Lawsuits Registered The Copyright Too Late
Lawyer Competance?
On the post: Can The USPS Really Restrict What You Do With Photographs Of WPA Murals?
Re: Post-Sale Control - You Have NO Rights
On the post: Can The USPS Really Restrict What You Do With Photographs Of WPA Murals?
Post-Sale Control - You Have NO Rights
Furthermore, they even assert ancillary "control" over products/content through the flimsiest of excuses. Disney Lawyers Chose Not To Sue You For Posting Your Disney World Vacation Videos... But They Could!
On the post: House Passes Ban On File Sharing Use By Government Employees
Re: Great
On the post: House Passes Ban On File Sharing Use By Government Employees
Re: Re: Self Incrimination
On the post: House Passes Ban On File Sharing Use By Government Employees
Fundamentally Flawed
According to the article: "We can no longer ignore the threat to sensitive government information, businesses, and consumers that insecure peer-to-peer networks pose," Towns said in the statement. "Securing federal computer files is critical to our national security."
If the real concern is security, then the obvious solution would be to have your IT department develop a secure computer. Passing a law that criminalizes certain behavior fundamentally does not actually improve security.
I guess this is a case of putting lipstick on a pig and hoping that nobody will notice.
On the post: House Passes Ban On File Sharing Use By Government Employees
Self Incrimination
On the post: Judge: Gene Patents Are Invalid
Re:
So what. Theoretically we live in a free-market system. What this means is that products come into existence when there is demand for them. If you invent a product and it is uneconomic, too bad.
You ignore the role of university research. It is quite unfortunate that taxpayer dollars can be used by private entities to patent products that should be in the public domain. See the Bayh-Dole Act
Also see How Patents Have Harmed University Research
On the post: Fixing Class Action Lawsuits
Re: Cox Censorship
Whether you realize it or not, your post actually raises a very subtle point of the net-neutrality debate. If the ISPs, such as COX, are not required to provide a neutral internet you will find a lot more "obstructions" than an inability to send email. We need guarantees for a neutral internet.
Actually, as I was writing this, it occurred to me that many of those in the tea party movement are against government involvement in a persons life. While I have no idea concerning your position on government regulation; I find it amusing that you would be complaining about what the company is allowing you to do on "their" network. Many people on the political "right" claim that companies can do whatever they want whenever they want. Customers have no rights. If you are a disgruntled consumer, too bad. Don't use Cox.
On the post: Fixing Class Action Lawsuits
Sprint Bad
The catch, you had to be a Sprint customer. By that time, we had dropped Sprint. Sure, we could have "received" our $15.00 had we signed up for a new two year plan (even though we still had the old phone)!
Moreover, even if you were still a Sprint customer; you never actually saw the "refund" since it would appear as a deduction on your future bills.
Settlements such as these demonstrate how ridiculous class action lawsuits are. If the injured party only receives "coupons" that force them to buy from the company that hurt them - that is exactly how the lawyers should be paid; in coupons!
Another issue with class action lawsuits, to my knowledge, their is no commitment on the part of the company in stopping their abusive practices.
On the post: Must Read: CCIA Sets US IP Czar Straight On Intellectual Property
But Utility Meters are the Real Culprit!
But when the content industry proposes that: "The federal government encourage ISPs to use, and companies to develop, monitoring, filtering, blocking, scanning and throttling technologies to combat the flow of unauthorized material online" there is silence.
Next >>