Hello Darryl. Let me translate the AC's comment above. Based on the content and format of your post, I'm guessing that you won't understand the reference. See, your whole post is completely irrelevent because you're arguing against a position that Mike did not take. He explicitly stated in his post...
"Again, this is not to say artists should not get paid. I'm very much in favor of business models where artists do get paid."
Protip: Your comments will have much more impact if you actually respond to what Mike said rather than what you assume he said.
Perhaps this is a problem of the New Yorker article rather than the book, but there seems to be a conflation of two distinct concepts here.
1) "financial rewards hinder creativity"
2) "the prospect of financial reward is the prime human motivator"
Notice that the first statement references financial rewards after the fact, whereas the second statement references financial rewards before the fact. Some might consider this a quibble, but as others have alluded to in the comments, it seems blatantly obvious that the affect on creativity before you strike it rich would be substantially different after you strike it rich. Any theory that doesn't properly take into account this distinction would seem to be fundamentally flawed.
But the Blockbuster deal seemed confusing -- because most consumers wouldn't be following these silly deals and wouldn't understand why a movie had been "released" but wasn't available via their favorite rental service.
It would seem to me that the consumer's confusion or ignorance around the deal that WB and BB struck would actually work in their favor. All the average consumer knows is that if they want to see Sherlock Holmes now (from one of the three top sources for rentals), they have to get it from BB. It may not be fair and it may not be in WB's best long term interest, but how could it be anything but good for BB?
Apparently, Blockbuster's answer to all this is to mock Netflix and Redbox for not carrying new releases.
So, where exactly is this mocking? I've actually seen those ads before and when I read his post, I thought to myself, "Well, Mike couldn't be talking about those because those aren't mocking in the least, so BB must have come out with some other sneaky or mean-spirited ads."
"North Face Decides South Butt Lawsuit Is Not Worth Exploring"
Exploring? Um...isn't the exploration stage long gone by the time a lawsuit is actually filed? The headline sounds like some euphamistic PR blather from North Face rather than an accurate description of what actually happened.
If you believe that I misinterpreted your post, please clarify (because your vague deflection doesn't provide any actual information.)
My main point is;
most other distracted driving has been going on for a long time, with little wide spread consequence. Since the widespread use of cell phones, it is epidemic.
And I ask again, how does this relate at all to your implication that you disagree with Mike? He never said that the problem of distracted drivers wasn't getting worse, so you could give a million examples of bad cell phone drivers and they would still would be irrelevant.
During a 10 minute drive yesterday, I saw 5 deadly dangerous drivers yacking on cell phones, and a few moderately dangerous ones doing the same.
So, how do your examples have any relevancy whatsoever to Mike's point that we should be addressing the underlying problem of bad driving rather than the specific symptom of driving while talking on a cell phone? You imply that you disagree with Mike, but while you quibble about the accuracy of the study's stats in the remainder of your post, don't ever actually say anything that contradicts his main point.
Well, there is a double standard when it comes to applying a principle to a long-existing piece of technology as opposed to a new piece of technology. Half of the stories on TechDirt are about people flipping out about some new technology and wanting to impose some screwed up restriction. For example, the same person that would say that ISPs should be responsible for examining its users' traffic for illegal content wouldn't dream of requiring the phone company to listen in on its customers' phone conversations, yet the principle is the same.
As for "remove the engines", the more appropriate comparison would be to add a device to prevent the car from going over the speed limit. Sure, it seems crazy, but if cars were just being invented today, it would take just hours for someone to seriously suggest that this made sense.
You can't do anything with the exploit GeoHot found.
I think that as long as there is a non-zero chance that something could possibly be used to cheat, it's Sony's responsibility to address it. In this case, I think it's just as much about the perception of the ability to cheat than the actual likelihood.
I'm a software developer and I use Linux on my PS3 at home for writing apps. It's not my primary machine, but being able to put Linux on the machine was the reason I was one of the first people in line to get one.
OK, but when you decided to put Linux on it, didn't you do so with the understanding that you might not be able to use it for its primary purpose i.e. playing games? I don't own a PS3, so I'll admit I don't know all of the details, but as an outside observer, it seems that this is a fair tradeoff.
Flaw in your argument is that Sony gets a government rebate because they've specifically argued that it is NOT a gaming platform, but a computer.
I think my argument is still valid; it's just that Sony would have to choose which one was more important, some tax benefit or the potential for a class action lawsuit.
This is necessary to prevent exploits and multiplayer cheats in case the PS3 gets hacked.
I think this is a key point. The primary value and the intent of the PS3 is as a game platform. Not properly preventing cheating would be considered negligent on Sony's part because it would seriously diminish the value of the product. In my mind, this outweighs any concerns about secondary uses of the PS3. If you bought a PS3 with the purpose of using it to run Linux, then fine; that's what you can do with it. But the tradeoff is that you won't be able to use it to play games. That seeems quite fair to me.
neckbeards who want to install Linux on their washing machines
Another way to look at it is that patents actually could be good way to measure innovation if there wasn't a "patent inflation" caused by giving out patents for so many non-innovative ideas. The problem as I see it is that the standards for what's innovative has become so low, the count of how many patents a company has is all but meaningless.
Yet another aspect to this topic is that the quest for an accurate measure of innovation may be a red herring, diverting attention away from the more important measures of success. We're coming out of a period of time of massive innovation. Doesn't it make sense that there might be a bit of a lull in real new ideas for a while and the better measure of a company's worth isn't how innovative they are -- no matter what the metric is -- but instead, how effective the company is in using existing ideas?
This is a non-story. The police are only suggesting these things
So, you really don't see any problem with the police going into a private business and suggesting that they spy on their customers? It'd be one thing if it was a PSA-type ad campaign, but when a cop is standing right in front of you suggesting that you do something, it carries the presumption of law. And in this case, it's not the law. Their suggestion is like an offer you can't refuse.
"I would suggest that you give me free donuts whenever I come into your store. Do you have to? No! I never said that. I just suggested it."
Actually, I happen to agree with you here. For two reasons, really:
I don't see how your two statements support your agreement that Internet cafe owners should be responsible for any activity that their customers do on their computers. Both of the reasons you provided appear to me to be focused on the cafe owners protecting themselves from some kind of cyber attack i.e. inside the cafe, whereas the topic at hand is the UK police encouraging cafe owners to spy on their customers in the hopes of catching illegal activity outside of the cafe.
would you let random people off the street use your system(s) and not be worried what they're doing or did?
To answer your question honestly, I might be a little worried, but I think the more appropriate point is that I would not feel responsible. Just as if I was the owner of a car rental company, I might be worried if my customers were driving on a snowy day, but I would understand inately that I'm just providing them with a tool and that they are responsible for how they use it.
Internet Cafes are liable for what their customers do on their systems, that's why they should be worried about what's happening on their systems.
Based on the article, the requirement to "watch" their customers is voluntary for UK Internet cafe owners, so they are in fact not liable for what their customers do. Which pretty much renders your point moot.
In any case, the owners should be watching what is being done on their computers anyway.
I have a serious question. It's not that I merely disagree with your statement. It's that I honestly can't even comprehend the state of mind of someone who could hold this opinion. Please explain what you mean by "watch" -- it's sound less sinister than "spy", but it has the same effect -- and also can you explain why you think it's reasonable for cybercafe owners to "watch" their customers?
Mike, I hate to say it, but I think in this case, you're guilty of the same kind of logical trickery that you call other people on all the time.
"The TV Everywhere supporters shoot back that they are increasing options by giving people access to their TV channels online, but that's only under very restrictive conditions that are more designed to keep you from cutting the cord from the cable company"
In the above quote, you make a statement followed by a "but" which implies that the second statement will contradict the first somehow, but...it doesn't. The whole point of your post (based on the headline) is that the big cable companies are not adding value. But you state yourself quite clearly that they are in fact adding value by allowing people to view the shows in their tier on platforms other than a TV.
Do I agree that their underlying motives are to tether the customer as much as possible to cable and that they should do more to embrace the options made possible by technology? Sure I do! I don't think I'd be a regular reader of TechDirt if I didn't. But making this kind of non sequiter argument does more to feed into the fears of your opponents than to support your arguments.
You do need to access servers to play games online via official servers and to record achievements, but I think that a lot of gamers would be willing to give up perks if it means the difference between playing the game at all or not
But you're making a distinction between official server and unofficial servers. So, let me qualify my original statement. Today's DRM implemented in many PC and console games requires a connection (sometimes constant) to the game company's official servers in order to play legally. This is what lead me to believe that you were implying that the censorship was OK because it could be circumvented. Or else why even bring up that it can be circumvented? What relevance does this have on the issue of whether it's ethical or just for Switzerland to censor computer games?
*PC* games do. Most of the games being targeted will be on consoles which have no such DRM.
I'm not a console gamer, but don't most big budget games require some kind of authentication to the central servers? Maybe even just to log into voice chat or to record your achievements? Maybe I'm defining DRM as little more loosely that you are, but I consider this as a form of DRM. Ostensibly, it's adding value to your gaming experience, but there's no denying that this kind of feature also gives quite a bit of control to the game company (or its publisher), the kind of control that can be used to censor a game.
On the post: Company That Sends Out Almost-Extortion-Like 'Pre-Settlement Letters' Sees No Problem With Almost-Extortion-Like 'Pre-Settlement Letters'
Non-sequiter much?
You don't even have to get to the issue of whether pre-settlement letters are effective to see that this statement is ridiculous.
Q: What does the effectiviness of a method have to do with whether it's right or wrong?
A: Absolutely nothing.
The statement is a non-sequiter designed to obfuscate their motives.
On the post: What If More Money Makes People Less Inclined To Create?
Re: Re: What 'other' models
"Again, this is not to say artists should not get paid. I'm very much in favor of business models where artists do get paid."
Protip: Your comments will have much more impact if you actually respond to what Mike said rather than what you assume he said.
On the post: What If More Money Makes People Less Inclined To Create?
Prospect
1) "financial rewards hinder creativity"
2) "the prospect of financial reward is the prime human motivator"
Notice that the first statement references financial rewards after the fact, whereas the second statement references financial rewards before the fact. Some might consider this a quibble, but as others have alluded to in the comments, it seems blatantly obvious that the affect on creativity before you strike it rich would be substantially different after you strike it rich. Any theory that doesn't properly take into account this distinction would seem to be fundamentally flawed.
On the post: Blockbuster Using Its Deal With Warner Bros. To Mock Redbox And Netflix
Mocking?
It would seem to me that the consumer's confusion or ignorance around the deal that WB and BB struck would actually work in their favor. All the average consumer knows is that if they want to see Sherlock Holmes now (from one of the three top sources for rentals), they have to get it from BB. It may not be fair and it may not be in WB's best long term interest, but how could it be anything but good for BB?
Apparently, Blockbuster's answer to all this is to mock Netflix and Redbox for not carrying new releases.
So, where exactly is this mocking? I've actually seen those ads before and when I read his post, I thought to myself, "Well, Mike couldn't be talking about those because those aren't mocking in the least, so BB must have come out with some other sneaky or mean-spirited ads."
On the post: North Face Decides South Butt Lawsuit Is Not Worth Exploring
About the headline...
Exploring? Um...isn't the exploration stage long gone by the time a lawsuit is actually filed? The headline sounds like some euphamistic PR blather from North Face rather than an accurate description of what actually happened.
On the post: Turns Out Not Everyone Drives Worse While Talking On A Phone (But You Probably Do)
Re: Re: Re: On most topics we agree, however
If you believe that I misinterpreted your post, please clarify (because your vague deflection doesn't provide any actual information.)
My main point is;
most other distracted driving has been going on for a long time, with little wide spread consequence. Since the widespread use of cell phones, it is epidemic.
And I ask again, how does this relate at all to your implication that you disagree with Mike? He never said that the problem of distracted drivers wasn't getting worse, so you could give a million examples of bad cell phone drivers and they would still would be irrelevant.
On the post: Turns Out Not Everyone Drives Worse While Talking On A Phone (But You Probably Do)
Re: On most topics we agree, however
So, how do your examples have any relevancy whatsoever to Mike's point that we should be addressing the underlying problem of bad driving rather than the specific symptom of driving while talking on a cell phone? You imply that you disagree with Mike, but while you quibble about the accuracy of the study's stats in the remainder of your post, don't ever actually say anything that contradicts his main point.
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for "remove the engines", the more appropriate comparison would be to add a device to prevent the car from going over the speed limit. Sure, it seems crazy, but if cars were just being invented today, it would take just hours for someone to seriously suggest that this made sense.
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
Re: Re: Re:
I think that as long as there is a non-zero chance that something could possibly be used to cheat, it's Sony's responsibility to address it. In this case, I think it's just as much about the perception of the ability to cheat than the actual likelihood.
I'm a software developer and I use Linux on my PS3 at home for writing apps. It's not my primary machine, but being able to put Linux on the machine was the reason I was one of the first people in line to get one.
OK, but when you decided to put Linux on it, didn't you do so with the understanding that you might not be able to use it for its primary purpose i.e. playing games? I don't own a PS3, so I'll admit I don't know all of the details, but as an outside observer, it seems that this is a fair tradeoff.
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
Re: Re: Re:
I think my argument is still valid; it's just that Sony would have to choose which one was more important, some tax benefit or the potential for a class action lawsuit.
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
Re:
I think this is a key point. The primary value and the intent of the PS3 is as a game platform. Not properly preventing cheating would be considered negligent on Sony's part because it would seriously diminish the value of the product. In my mind, this outweighs any concerns about secondary uses of the PS3. If you bought a PS3 with the purpose of using it to run Linux, then fine; that's what you can do with it. But the tradeoff is that you won't be able to use it to play games. That seeems quite fair to me.
neckbeards who want to install Linux on their washing machines
I LOLed.
On the post: Can We Come Up With A Better Way To Measure Innovation?
Patent inflation
Yet another aspect to this topic is that the quest for an accurate measure of innovation may be a red herring, diverting attention away from the more important measures of success. We're coming out of a period of time of massive innovation. Doesn't it make sense that there might be a bit of a lull in real new ideas for a while and the better measure of a company's worth isn't how innovative they are -- no matter what the metric is -- but instead, how effective the company is in using existing ideas?
On the post: UK Police Tell Cybercafe Owners 'We're Not Asking You To Spy On Users... But Spy On Users'
Re: Non-issue
So, you really don't see any problem with the police going into a private business and suggesting that they spy on their customers? It'd be one thing if it was a PSA-type ad campaign, but when a cop is standing right in front of you suggesting that you do something, it carries the presumption of law. And in this case, it's not the law. Their suggestion is like an offer you can't refuse.
"I would suggest that you give me free donuts whenever I come into your store. Do you have to? No! I never said that. I just suggested it."
On the post: UK Police Tell Cybercafe Owners 'We're Not Asking You To Spy On Users... But Spy On Users'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Spy
I don't see how your two statements support your agreement that Internet cafe owners should be responsible for any activity that their customers do on their computers. Both of the reasons you provided appear to me to be focused on the cafe owners protecting themselves from some kind of cyber attack i.e. inside the cafe, whereas the topic at hand is the UK police encouraging cafe owners to spy on their customers in the hopes of catching illegal activity outside of the cafe.
On the post: UK Police Tell Cybercafe Owners 'We're Not Asking You To Spy On Users... But Spy On Users'
Re: Re: Re: Spy
To answer your question honestly, I might be a little worried, but I think the more appropriate point is that I would not feel responsible. Just as if I was the owner of a car rental company, I might be worried if my customers were driving on a snowy day, but I would understand inately that I'm just providing them with a tool and that they are responsible for how they use it.
Internet Cafes are liable for what their customers do on their systems, that's why they should be worried about what's happening on their systems.
Based on the article, the requirement to "watch" their customers is voluntary for UK Internet cafe owners, so they are in fact not liable for what their customers do. Which pretty much renders your point moot.
On the post: UK Police Tell Cybercafe Owners 'We're Not Asking You To Spy On Users... But Spy On Users'
Re: Spy
I have a serious question. It's not that I merely disagree with your statement. It's that I honestly can't even comprehend the state of mind of someone who could hold this opinion. Please explain what you mean by "watch" -- it's sound less sinister than "spy", but it has the same effect -- and also can you explain why you think it's reasonable for cybercafe owners to "watch" their customers?
On the post: Why TV Everywhere Will Fail: Because It's Based On Taking Away Value, Not Adding It
But it *is* adding value
"The TV Everywhere supporters shoot back that they are increasing options by giving people access to their TV channels online, but that's only under very restrictive conditions that are more designed to keep you from cutting the cord from the cable company"
In the above quote, you make a statement followed by a "but" which implies that the second statement will contradict the first somehow, but...it doesn't. The whole point of your post (based on the headline) is that the big cable companies are not adding value. But you state yourself quite clearly that they are in fact adding value by allowing people to view the shows in their tier on platforms other than a TV.
Do I agree that their underlying motives are to tether the customer as much as possible to cable and that they should do more to embrace the options made possible by technology? Sure I do! I don't think I'd be a regular reader of TechDirt if I didn't. But making this kind of non sequiter argument does more to feed into the fears of your opponents than to support your arguments.
On the post: Switzerland So Neutral It Won't Even Let In Violent Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To what end?
But you're making a distinction between official server and unofficial servers. So, let me qualify my original statement. Today's DRM implemented in many PC and console games requires a connection (sometimes constant) to the game company's official servers in order to play legally. This is what lead me to believe that you were implying that the censorship was OK because it could be circumvented. Or else why even bring up that it can be circumvented? What relevance does this have on the issue of whether it's ethical or just for Switzerland to censor computer games?
On the post: Switzerland So Neutral It Won't Even Let In Violent Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Re: To what end?
I'm not a console gamer, but don't most big budget games require some kind of authentication to the central servers? Maybe even just to log into voice chat or to record your achievements? Maybe I'm defining DRM as little more loosely that you are, but I consider this as a form of DRM. Ostensibly, it's adding value to your gaming experience, but there's no denying that this kind of feature also gives quite a bit of control to the game company (or its publisher), the kind of control that can be used to censor a game.
Next >>