What are you talking about? Who is claiming that IBM is a patent troll? The only patent troll named in this article is Yahoo. There is also a statement warning that with this purchase by Facebook, it could stumble down the hole known as Patent Troll.
R&D does not require patents to be profitable. Facebook was designed and created without patents. Patents were only sought after seeking funding to expand. These patents that Facebook bought are not going to be used to expand what Facebook can do. Most likely they cover things Facebook was doing despite them. What value have they actually brought Facebook?
Funny. I don't remember patents being the driver behind the Small pox and Polio vaccines. Last I checked those were created out of a desire to benefit humanity. I guess I need to retake history class.
What exactly is Twitter doing that is so unique? The uniqueness of Twitter is not in the underlying technology but in the community that it created. That community cannot be patented yet it has tremendous value.
Actually definitions are a huge part of this debate. Many offenses are merely miscommunications. Someone says or does something that another person misinterprets and takes offense. Once clear information and context is applied, those offenses are clearly laid to rest.
When you ask most people if they see the difference between copying a legally owned cd to their computer and doing the same with a DVD, the best answer you will get is that with the CD it is a right click -> copy affair and a DVD requires additional software. They are clueless when it comes to things like the DMCA and its anti-circumvention clause. Not because they are nefarious, but because the DMCA attempts to outlaw basic human nature.
But sense you are not human, you have no idea how the average person thinks or feels. That is not a failing on their part, but on your own inhumanity.
The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.
The Hobbit is not in the public domain. It won't be in the public domain until 2043 at the earliest (assuming no further copyright extensions are passed).
The Hobbit is not in the public domain. It won't be in the public domain until 2043 at the earliest (assuming no further copyright extensions are passed).
I don't see how Mike is saying that punishing the law breakers is bad (as long as they are actually breaking the law). What he is saying here is that the MPAA looks like a group of idiots for contradicting themselves.
I love this kind of stuff. If the MPAA's and the RIAA's feet are lodged so far into their mouths while their heads are lodged so far up their anuses, it will make it more difficult for them to spout off nonsense and get legislation passed. Doing both takes some tremendous skill.
It is possible to have a well run TLD that is exclusionary. We have .edu, .gov, .mil etc. Each of these are restricted to accredited educational institutions, governments and military (respectively). However, the big difference between these TLDs and the likes of .music, .movies and .games is who decides who gets one of those domains.
With .edu we have national and state accrediting institutions that have strict guidelines on when or if a school is officially a school. So by looking up the school in such databases is relatively easy.
Governments and military are also really easy to determine.
On the other hand, with .music, .movie and .games we have a very subjective process of determination on who qualifies. Does Dan Bull qualify for .music? Does Nina Paley qualify for .Movie? Does Divine Knight Gaming qualify for .games? We don't know. Chances are if such TLDs are left in the hands of the RIAA, MPAA and the ESA we will see a very closed off system that does not allow for qualified independent artists to use. Of course those artists will most likely not car and continue to use any one of the myriad of TLDs that don't have such requirements.
If what you say is true, then any old Congressman will do. However, it is pretty clear that lobbyists only want Congressmen who have proposed, supported and passed legislation that benefitted their respective industries. That is where the corruption comes in.
As for your claims of bias in the selection of former congressmen listed, of course there is some. These are the organizations Mike writes about on a regular basis and are relevant to the discussions we have here. Had the linked article listed lobbyists for the green movement or for tech firms, perhaps Mike would have listed the tech ones. The green movement has less relevance here and would have been less likely to have been listed. Just as the one that were unaffiliated lobbyists and the one for the Electric Cooperative.
You are operating under the impression that Congressmen are supposed to be in it for the money. No they are not. The salary they get is meant to compensate them for the time they spend working for the American people. If $150k is not enough for that, you are in the wrong field to begin with.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly referred to as Mormons) do not practice polygamous marriages now and have not done so since 1890.
There are splinter groups such as the Fundamentalists Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that still do in violation of the law. These groups have no association with the mainstream LDS religion.
Since the 1890 Manifesto, any existing polygamous marriages were still binding and valid, but no new polygamous marriages were authorized. Any member which entered into a new polygamous marriage were excommunicated.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 15 Mar 2012 @ 11:48am
Re:
What does the MPAA create exactly? Last I checked they create nothing. I guess you could argue that the member studios create that stuff, but are they only doing that because of the MPAA? No. They are doing it because there is money to be made from it.
Also, your comments equating indie film and music to "get spanked and anally violated by transvestites" is rather interesting. I guess it really shows what you think of on a regular basis.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 15 Mar 2012 @ 11:46am
Re:
I think creating a massive government run "man in the middle" attack on web users is very much "breaking the internet".
I guess you have no problems letting the government and entertainment companies spy on your internet usage, but a lot of people like their privacy. Not because they are doing anything wrong, but because they just like keeping their private life private.
It seems clear that Fox's marketing execs shouldn't be working in marketing. Nothing about this proposal is convenient or worthwhile to the end consumer.
The idea is that people often do go to physical stores, see something, and decide to buy it online (or worse, pirate it online). Getting them an app in their hands that allows them to scan and go, possibly bypassing ALL of the distribution channels and go right back to the distributor seems like a win.
It really is a shame that Amazon has already beaten them to the punch. In fact, Amazon's app doesn't even require special QR codes, you can simply scan the bar code on the DVD itself to see the availability on Amazon. Why would someone go through the trouble of downloading a proprietary app that works only with specific QR codes that may not be available in their area, to buy a DVD from a source that is most likely not the best price in town?
It's a pretty neat solution - it puts them in direct contact with their customers, gives them a way to talk directly with them, and allows them to fulfill their desires for product quickly.
How does that work out? I really don't see how this does anything you say it does.
Talk directly to and contact customers? You mean the same customers who are abandoning QR codes in droves? The same customers who are more willing to simply log onto Amazon or iTunes than drive to the mall and scan a QR code on a wall?
Fulfill desires quickly? By making them drive to a mall and then wait for days while the DVD is shipped? How does that work?
Too bad you just don't get it - like so many things, it seems.
You're right. Mike has a hard time figuring out just why execs at movie and music studios are so disconnected from their fans and reality. If they actually understood the market, this proposal would have been tossed in the bin the moment it was proposed.
No reason to focus on RtB when Fox is glossing over the CwF part of the equation. Seriously, how does this convoluted mess of a system connect with fans or give them a reason to buy?
On the post: Twilight Studio Issues Another Bogus Takedown, But Is Zazzle Partially To Blame?
Needs a T-Shirt
On the post: Facebook Has To Waste Money On 750 IBM Patents Just To Ward Off Other Patent Lawsuits
Re:
R&D does not require patents to be profitable. Facebook was designed and created without patents. Patents were only sought after seeking funding to expand. These patents that Facebook bought are not going to be used to expand what Facebook can do. Most likely they cover things Facebook was doing despite them. What value have they actually brought Facebook?
On the post: Another Boost For Generics: Brazilian Judge Annuls Patent On Key AIDS Drug
Re:
On the post: Facebook Has To Waste Money On 750 IBM Patents Just To Ward Off Other Patent Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Patent Abolition FTW
On the post: How Much Of Today's Copyright Mess Is Due To Bad Definitions Of The Word Copy?
Re:
When you ask most people if they see the difference between copying a legally owned cd to their computer and doing the same with a DVD, the best answer you will get is that with the CD it is a right click -> copy affair and a DVD requires additional software. They are clueless when it comes to things like the DMCA and its anti-circumvention clause. Not because they are nefarious, but because the DMCA attempts to outlaw basic human nature.
But sense you are not human, you have no idea how the average person thinks or feels. That is not a failing on their part, but on your own inhumanity.
On the post: Hobbit Actors Stephen Fry & Ian McKellen Pay License For Hobbit Pub
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
On the post: Hobbit Actors Stephen Fry & Ian McKellen Pay License For Hobbit Pub
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hobbit Actors Stephen Fry & Ian McKellen Pay License For Hobbit Pub
Re: Re:
On the post: Hobbit Actors Stephen Fry & Ian McKellen Pay License For Hobbit Pub
Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA Asks For Megaupload Data To Be Retained So It Can Sue Users... Then Insists It Didn't Really Mean That
Re:
On the post: MPAA Asks For Megaupload Data To Be Retained So It Can Sue Users... Then Insists It Didn't Really Mean That
On the post: Fear-Induced Foolishness: Entertainment Industry Thinks Controls On New TLDs Will Actually Impact Piracy
Re:
With .edu we have national and state accrediting institutions that have strict guidelines on when or if a school is officially a school. So by looking up the school in such databases is relatively easy.
Governments and military are also really easy to determine.
On the other hand, with .music, .movie and .games we have a very subjective process of determination on who qualifies. Does Dan Bull qualify for .music? Does Nina Paley qualify for .Movie? Does Divine Knight Gaming qualify for .games? We don't know. Chances are if such TLDs are left in the hands of the RIAA, MPAA and the ESA we will see a very closed off system that does not allow for qualified independent artists to use. Of course those artists will most likely not car and continue to use any one of the myriad of TLDs that don't have such requirements.
On the post: Fear-Induced Foolishness: Entertainment Industry Thinks Controls On New TLDs Will Actually Impact Piracy
Re: expensive
On the post: Elected Officials Get An Average 1,452% Salary Increase When They Take A Lobbying Job
Re: Re: Re:
As for your claims of bias in the selection of former congressmen listed, of course there is some. These are the organizations Mike writes about on a regular basis and are relevant to the discussions we have here. Had the linked article listed lobbyists for the green movement or for tech firms, perhaps Mike would have listed the tech ones. The green movement has less relevance here and would have been less likely to have been listed. Just as the one that were unaffiliated lobbyists and the one for the Electric Cooperative.
On the post: Elected Officials Get An Average 1,452% Salary Increase When They Take A Lobbying Job
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What To Do When Facebook Suggests You Become Friends With Your Husband's Other Wife
Re: Re: One to many
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly referred to as Mormons) do not practice polygamous marriages now and have not done so since 1890.
There are splinter groups such as the Fundamentalists Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that still do in violation of the law. These groups have no association with the mainstream LDS religion.
Since the 1890 Manifesto, any existing polygamous marriages were still binding and valid, but no new polygamous marriages were authorized. Any member which entered into a new polygamous marriage were excommunicated.
On the post: MPAA Exec: Only We Can Make Content That People Want
Re:
Also, your comments equating indie film and music to "get spanked and anally violated by transvestites" is rather interesting. I guess it really shows what you think of on a regular basis.
On the post: MPAA Exec: Only We Can Make Content That People Want
Re:
I guess you have no problems letting the government and entertainment companies spy on your internet usage, but a lot of people like their privacy. Not because they are doing anything wrong, but because they just like keeping their private life private.
On the post: Does Anyone Who Develops New Products In Hollywood Ask 'Would I Ever Actually Use This?'
Re:
It seems clear that Fox's marketing execs shouldn't be working in marketing. Nothing about this proposal is convenient or worthwhile to the end consumer.
The idea is that people often do go to physical stores, see something, and decide to buy it online (or worse, pirate it online). Getting them an app in their hands that allows them to scan and go, possibly bypassing ALL of the distribution channels and go right back to the distributor seems like a win.
It really is a shame that Amazon has already beaten them to the punch. In fact, Amazon's app doesn't even require special QR codes, you can simply scan the bar code on the DVD itself to see the availability on Amazon. Why would someone go through the trouble of downloading a proprietary app that works only with specific QR codes that may not be available in their area, to buy a DVD from a source that is most likely not the best price in town?
It's a pretty neat solution - it puts them in direct contact with their customers, gives them a way to talk directly with them, and allows them to fulfill their desires for product quickly.
How does that work out? I really don't see how this does anything you say it does.
Talk directly to and contact customers? You mean the same customers who are abandoning QR codes in droves? The same customers who are more willing to simply log onto Amazon or iTunes than drive to the mall and scan a QR code on a wall?
Fulfill desires quickly? By making them drive to a mall and then wait for days while the DVD is shipped? How does that work?
Too bad you just don't get it - like so many things, it seems.
You're right. Mike has a hard time figuring out just why execs at movie and music studios are so disconnected from their fans and reality. If they actually understood the market, this proposal would have been tossed in the bin the moment it was proposed.
On the post: Does Anyone Who Develops New Products In Hollywood Ask 'Would I Ever Actually Use This?'
Re:
Next >>