While true, many people unfortunately view "freedom" as a license to steal. I don't want to see regulation either. But I have a serious problem with those that claim that the invisible hand of the "free-market" will somehow magically enforce the net neutrality compliance. While companies may imply that they would abide by the concept of a neutral internet, how many have actually come out with a legitimate promise to that effect??????????????
Whenever legislation is proposed there is an immediate howl of anguish claiming that the proposed laws are bad due to "unintended consequences". Literally this is a half truth as the lack of regulation also has "unintended consequences". Just because we don't have regulation does not mean that we will have net neutrality.
An unappreciated aspect of the whole piracy issue is that when content is leaked, the most likely source of that leak is someone closely associated with the content.
Once content is created, it easily "escapes" and points to an inability of the content creators to really control distribution. So when it is leaked, its too late, too bad, get on with life. But my real point, why continue to blame the informal distribution system and try to stamp it out when internal security is responsibility to the content creators?
It is my understanding that one of the controversial aspects of HFT is that the underlying computer programs are sophisticated and powerful enough to the point of being able to "read" (project) the market as it moves and to insert trades into that movement.
From the point of nifty powerful technological sophistication, there is nothing wrong with HFT. But from the viewpoint of an open (transparent) and fair market operation based on everyone being able to observe the bidding process and make an informed trading decision, it would seem to be quite unfair.
If it somehow becomes legal for someone to be denied internet access because of some perceived infringement. Every special interest group will claim the same equal "right" to punish people who they define as "bad".
In terms of copyright infringement, we don't even have a level playing field. Those howling over infringement are claiming ever more supposed "rights" that they don't even possess. If this trend were to continue we will all eventually be denied access to the internet!
It continues to amaze me how top corporate executives can get huge compensation packages as their companies sink into oblivion. (Note, I used the term "their" and not "stockholder").
Of special note, as Time-Warner and AOL have finally gotten a divorce on their 10 year failed "marriage", the newspapers came out with the typical "What went wrong?" articles. Some of the stories did get around to mentioning that the executives behind the merger walked away with millions of dollars while those further down the food chain lost.
Should Warner Music Collapse, I am sure the top executives from their luxury villas will lament to the press how external factors such as piracy destroyed their business without ever acknowledging or accepting blame for their own deficiencies.
Surely you jest. Due process is so old age. Corporations, in the name of protecting their revenue stream, are entitled to take what ever whimsical action is necessary to protect that stream. Even to the point of forcing you (a third party) to "arrest" some miscreant based on the their finger of assigned guilt.
If ISP are "required" to protect a special interest, such as that of a copyright holder we will begin to see other groups begin to claim an equal entitlement that ISP protect them too. I can see it now, ISP required to inspect every packet for porn, gambling, smoking, cruelty to animals, and eating too many big macs.
In an email exchange, it occurred to me that I "missed" a thought on the lack of analysis in the NYT article. The article talks of making one standard for purposes of portability. Well, all these companies purposely designed their content with proprietary technologies to prevent portability. Now they want to portability under the assertion that they are doing it to help the consumer???? Hogwash.
Recently, I have been looking at getting a new radio and I noticed how many had an "iPod" connection. It dawned on me that Apple has "locked-up" digital access to radios. Sure, some have a regular USB connection, but I don't want to buy-into Apples proprietary system.
The underlying New York Times article has some scary implications. Mitch Singer of Sony Pictures Entertainment is quoted as saying: "“Consumers shouldn’t have to know what’s inside,” he said. “They should just know it will play.”". Note the company name, Sony. Sony brought us the famous rootkit scandal. So here we have an implementation of a hidden DRM that effectively deprived the consumer of their rights to use their equipment as they wish.
This concept of "hiding" the technology also applies to the whole network neutrality debate. As Comcast already demonstrated, they can manage the flow of packets in an undisclosed manner. So given the capability, companies will implement since they have little respect for the consumers rights.
Clearly, the use of surreptitiously "hidden" technologies allows companies to turn your computer (device) into a zombie device that you loose control over.
Sounds like free market competition was robust. According to the article: "But when Marren took over as CEO in 1998, its sales had almost disappeared, crushed by competition from Intel Corp., which was aggressively going after the core-logic chipset market that was OPTi’s bread and butter. OPTi, which went public with flair in 1993, by 2000 had revenue of zero."
The article goes on to quote Marren as asking how he will compete. Instead of developing new products to sell, he is simply suing other manufacturers. Clearly they were not able to translate their patents into viable products.
Based on the absurdities of patents being granted today, it seems quite problematic that the companies he is suing really "stole" his patents. The company may not have started as a "patent troll" company, but it is one now.
A poster here on TechDirt raised the concept of an oscillating lawn sprinkler. Basically, you should NOT be able to patent the concept of an oscillating lawn sprinkler. I would be willing to accept a patent on an oscillating lawn sprinkler that is an assemblage of clearly defined parts that can physically exist. (Obviously, I am not raising the "test" of non-obvious as a patent qualification.)
Moreover, competitors should be able to reverse engineer any patented device. Under this scenario, patent infringement would only occur if the competitors actually use any of the physical parts depicted in the patent.
Any "device" that consists of an ethereal assemblage of "cloud" boxes should NOT be patentable.
I have been told by those who claim that regulation is not necessary that the free-market will efficiently solve the issue of bad corporate conduct. After all - they assert that - companies in a competitive environment will not want to alienate their client base. Therefore they will work hard to make their customers happy. So I have been told.
So the RIAA or the MPPA can simply phone their local FBI agent who then kicks open my door at 3AM, drags me off to jail,and then I have to post a $1 gazillion bond to get out of jail on there mere assertion that I did something wrong.
Now if the they do something wrong to me, I have to hire a lawyer at my expense and go through an agonizing 100 year civil process to get my $20 thingy fixed.
It continues to astound me that we can fund more law enforcement personnel to fight "piracy". However, when it comes to the abusive tactics of companies in defrauding the consumer the issue of using the power of the State to protect the consumer's interest evaporates. Not only that but those complaining about consumer protection raise the specter of the Nanny State.
Companies incessantly whine about how "consumer protection" will hurt their business, so we have to give them "flexibility". Furthermore, many claim that we need "small" government and consumer protection is the consumers responsibility. After all we don't want to have a Nanny State.
Well if we want smaller government and not a Nanny State, logically we should NOT be enhancing (enlarging) the law enforcement bureaucracy. It also logically follows that when consumer protection is the responsibility of the consumer, then protection from piracy is a company responsibility and NOT a State responsibility.
We just had this weekend the graduation from college for my eldest daughter. When the graduation began, the speaker (of course) admonished everyone to turn off their cell phones.
Well during the ceremony, one of my other daughters was in constant communication by texting my eldest daughter. After the ceremony, I asked my eldest daughter what the other graduates were doing. Her response texting!
So, today we are no longer forced to simply sit for a couple of hours listening to incredibly boring speakers. Ah progress!!!
In this rebuttal, Mr. Shughart makes the assertion that people should be compensated for their hard work. Nothing wrong with that, but what about the issue of two people independently developing the same idea?
Also Mr. Shughart makes the false claim that ideas are scarce and even makes the unjustified assertion that the: "1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, the authors of books, Walt Disney characters, and computer software will not likely be deterred from being creative if their children or grandchildren are denied royalty payments." It's incredibility naive for an author discussing copyright to claim that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act somehow denies royalty payments (sob, for the poor children, sniff) when it is actually a huge expansive "land grab" by the content industry.
On the post: Obama Administration Considers More Public Access To Publicly Funded Research
Bayh–Dole Act
On the post: This Is Why We Worry About Net Neutrality Regs: Loopholes For RIAA/MPAA
True Net Neutrality is true freedom
On the post: This Is Why We Worry About Net Neutrality Regs: Loopholes For RIAA/MPAA
"Unintended Consequences" Occurs on Both Sides
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Leaks - An Inside Job
Once content is created, it easily "escapes" and points to an inability of the content creators to really control distribution. So when it is leaked, its too late, too bad, get on with life. But my real point, why continue to blame the informal distribution system and try to stamp it out when internal security is responsibility to the content creators?
On the post: SEC Concerned About High Frequency Trading
Predictive Models
From the point of nifty powerful technological sophistication, there is nothing wrong with HFT. But from the viewpoint of an open (transparent) and fair market operation based on everyone being able to observe the bidding process and make an informed trading decision, it would seem to be quite unfair.
On the post: If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
Ye Olde Slippery Slope
In terms of copyright infringement, we don't even have a level playing field. Those howling over infringement are claiming ever more supposed "rights" that they don't even possess. If this trend were to continue we will all eventually be denied access to the internet!
On the post: As Warner Music Collapses, Its Two Top Execs Got Paid $14 Million
Corporate Greed
Of special note, as Time-Warner and AOL have finally gotten a divorce on their 10 year failed "marriage", the newspapers came out with the typical "What went wrong?" articles. Some of the stories did get around to mentioning that the executives behind the merger walked away with millions of dollars while those further down the food chain lost.
Should Warner Music Collapse, I am sure the top executives from their luxury villas will lament to the press how external factors such as piracy destroyed their business without ever acknowledging or accepting blame for their own deficiencies.
On the post: Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway
Re: Following to logical conclusions...
On the post: Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway
The Slippery Slope
On the post: Is Hiding A New DRM Standard Behind The Guise Of 'It Works On Any Device' Really That Compelling?
Re: Did You Read The NYT Article?
On the post: Is Hiding A New DRM Standard Behind The Guise Of 'It Works On Any Device' Really That Compelling?
The Poor Generic MP3 Player
On the post: Is Hiding A New DRM Standard Behind The Guise Of 'It Works On Any Device' Really That Compelling?
Did You Read The NYT Article?
This concept of "hiding" the technology also applies to the whole network neutrality debate. As Comcast already demonstrated, they can manage the flow of packets in an undisclosed manner. So given the capability, companies will implement since they have little respect for the consumers rights.
Clearly, the use of surreptitiously "hidden" technologies allows companies to turn your computer (device) into a zombie device that you loose control over.
On the post: OPTi Shows: When You Can't Compete In The Market, You Sue For Patent Infringement
Huh???
The article goes on to quote Marren as asking how he will compete. Instead of developing new products to sell, he is simply suing other manufacturers. Clearly they were not able to translate their patents into viable products.
Based on the absurdities of patents being granted today, it seems quite problematic that the companies he is suing really "stole" his patents. The company may not have started as a "patent troll" company, but it is one now.
On the post: Patent Office Releases New Temporary Post-Bilski Test For Software Patents
A real product based on real components
Moreover, competitors should be able to reverse engineer any patented device. Under this scenario, patent infringement would only occur if the competitors actually use any of the physical parts depicted in the patent.
Any "device" that consists of an ethereal assemblage of "cloud" boxes should NOT be patentable.
On the post: Verizon Wireless Denies It's Charging People Phantom $1.99 Fee, Despite Tons Of Complaints
The Wonders of No Regulation
On the post: Congress Gives $30 Million To Fight 'Piracy'
Re: Re: The Flip Side - Consumer Protection
Now if the they do something wrong to me, I have to hire a lawyer at my expense and go through an agonizing 100 year civil process to get my $20 thingy fixed.
What is wrong with this picture?
On the post: Congress Gives $30 Million To Fight 'Piracy'
The Flip Side - Consumer Protection
Companies incessantly whine about how "consumer protection" will hurt their business, so we have to give them "flexibility". Furthermore, many claim that we need "small" government and consumer protection is the consumers responsibility. After all we don't want to have a Nanny State.
Well if we want smaller government and not a Nanny State, logically we should NOT be enhancing (enlarging) the law enforcement bureaucracy. It also logically follows that when consumer protection is the responsibility of the consumer, then protection from piracy is a company responsibility and NOT a State responsibility.
On the post: Jurors Cause Trouble By Friending Each Other On Facebook, Using Wikipedia For Research
Can't Stop the Message
Well during the ceremony, one of my other daughters was in constant communication by texting my eldest daughter. After the ceremony, I asked my eldest daughter what the other graduates were doing. Her response texting!
So, today we are no longer forced to simply sit for a couple of hours listening to incredibly boring speakers. Ah progress!!!
On the post: Editorial On Why The Patent System Should Be Abolished
Re: But Wait, This is a Two For One Offer!
In a Wikipedia age, should all ideas be free?
In this rebuttal, Mr. Shughart makes the assertion that people should be compensated for their hard work. Nothing wrong with that, but what about the issue of two people independently developing the same idea?
Also Mr. Shughart makes the false claim that ideas are scarce and even makes the unjustified assertion that the: "1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, the authors of books, Walt Disney characters, and computer software will not likely be deterred from being creative if their children or grandchildren are denied royalty payments." It's incredibility naive for an author discussing copyright to claim that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act somehow denies royalty payments (sob, for the poor children, sniff) when it is actually a huge expansive "land grab" by the content industry.
On the post: Editorial On Why The Patent System Should Be Abolished
But Wait, This is a Two For One Offer!
Next >>