I acknowledged that the DRM could be circumvented. I hope you're not, but you seem to be implying that censorship is OK as long as it can be circumvented by the technically literate. The danger in this attitude, obviously, is that people don't fight back when they have the chance (when a new law is being proposed) and when they figure out how to lock down the DRM even tighter, it's already too late.
How in God's name can you expect to effectively ban a game with today's technology?
It's precisely because of today's technology that they will be able to ban video games. Sure, Switzerland's borders are porous, but with much of today's DRM requiring a connection (sometimes constant) to the game company servers, there will be pressure on the game companies to restrict access based on country of origin. DRM isn't just a tool for protecting "IP"; it can also be used for censorship. Sure, this restriction can be easily circumvented, but the point is that the ban will have a dramatic effect on the freedoms of the Swiss.
The only relevance of the invention (and not the patent), which you seem intent on using to blast patent law in general, was that it represented one example of technical means by which the risk of harm presented by table saws could be mitigated.
Speaking of misleading and innacurate, the point you're trying to make above is both. The problem is that the fact that SawStop holds the patent on this techology means you can't hide behind the "one example" clause. The issue of course is that if there were any other examples of this kind of "flesh detecting technology", they'd be sued by SawStop so fast, it'd make their heads spin! Based on my reading of the linked article, the lawsuit wasn't that Ryobi didn't use some hypothetical "other" safety technology that may or may not actually exist; the lawsuit was about them not using "a flesh-detecting technology like SawStop's" that, by definition of how the patent system works, could only be SawStop's technology. It's a Hobson's Choice.
How would this affect the whole debate around .xxx? If all you have to do is pony up 200 grand to buy your own TLD, why wouldn't some enterprising pornographer just buy .xxx? Fine, it's obviously now their policy to sell private TLDs so if ICANN doesn't want .xxx to be a public TLD, then what logical reason would they have for not selling it as a private TLD?
What makes this story doubly perplexing is that 95% of the people who even know who Eddie Grant is only know him for Electric Avenue and that isn't even the song Gorillaz are being accused of copying. Doh!
Also, about the worst song in history comment. This reminds me of those VH1 "top worst songs" shows. The thing is, if they really found the worst songs, they'd be by no one anyone ever heard of. What these shows should really be called is "Let's make fun of some videos that were popular at the time, but look silly in hind sight."
Even if they didn't outright sample and manipulate the original synth riff, they can NOT not have known it sounded so similar.
So, you're saying it's not possible that The Gorillaz could be unaware that one of the trillion songs that have been recorded sounds roughly similar to their song? Rather than impossible, I think it's almost certain.
It's not like Gorillaz is some unknown band, they have the money to clear samples and/or give a writing credit to the guy : guilty.
But if you're the person from Gorillaz who wrote this song and you've never even heard the Eddie Grant song, you wouldn't even think to clear the sample of give writing credits because it wasn't a sample and you wrote it.
Nope. Just someone who got bored of a meandering and increasingly non-sensical story line.
Heroes has the largest following of any TV scifi currently on the air.
So, by your logic, Britney Spears is the best artist of the last decade. I'm not knocking popularity, but it's a far cry from proving quality.
As for Leno vs. Conan, I didn’t like how NBC handled it, but I’ve never been a big fan of Conan
Again, to each his own. On top of the shitty way that NBC handled it, the real issue is that NBC chose Leno who is guarenteed to appeal to more (mostly older) people in the short to very short term over someone who will appeal to a much broader audience in the longer term. Short sightendness FTL.
If NBC top brass listened to folks like Kring, and realized the challenge is to make people happy, rather than spending so much time trying to force them into "the way NBC wants things to work," perhaps the network wouldn't be in so much trouble.
Not to get too snarky here, but even if they take Kring's advice on "multiplatform storytelling", it wouldn't change the fact that his show is crap. Putting a show that's lost its way on multiple platforms won't get NBC out of the trouble it's in. Making better shows will.
I think Ubisoft was emboldened by the lack of negative response from the casual gamers to recent forms of DRM in computer games. The hue and cry and calls for boycotts from the hard core gamers were easilly ignored as "fringe" opinions. What most companies were doing was increasing the heat by a little bit over time so the frog didn't know it was being boiled. But what Ubisoft did was crank up the heat all the way in one step. So, instead of adding a restriction (install limits) that most casual gamers wouldn't become aware of for years, if ever, Ubisoft added a restriction that even the casual gamers would notice immediately.
When casual gamers are affected, they'll put pressure on the retailers. When the retailers are affected, they'll put pressure on the publishers. Only when the pressure on the publishers gets high enough will there start to be change around the attitudes on DRM.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How exactly are Experian's ad misleading?
Apparently, the FTC has lived a very sheltered life as well, then.
Rather than a blanket defence of Experian, my question was merely meant to point out that the justification for Mike's strong statement was not actually included in the main text of the post. There very well could be mitigating circumstances that set Experian apart from your run-of-the-mill exagerations in advertising and warranted the action of the FTC.
I understand that Mike uses links to his previous posts and to other sites as a means to provide additional background on a particular topic. But in my opinion, when you make a statement as strong as he did in the post, you should include the justification for that statement in the main text of the post.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How exactly are Experian's ad misleading?
Just because you have become accustomed to, and are willing to lie down for, a patently misleading use of a known word, under the premise that it's common practice in business, means nothing.
Agreed. It's a good thing then that I'm not the only one who has become accustomed to this. Most people of a certain level of experience understand that a bit of stretching the truth in advertising is common practice. It's not just me; it's most of the population of the planet. Also, as I pointed out in another thread, I'm not saying this is right. Sure, in a perfect world, advertisers would be held accountable to the literal truth and there'd be no exageration or hyperbole in ads. But this isn't going to happen. So, feel free to tilt at windmills in your quest for utter truth in advertising while the rest of us lie down and take it. Personally, I think it'd be much more effective to focus in on cases where advertisers cross the line, even if this means there's some subjective debate on where to draw the line.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How exactly are Experian's ad misleading?
Just because it is common does not make it /right/.
Agreed. But what does that have to do with the topic? I didn't say it was right; I said it wasn't misleading. Unless you're very young or sheltered, you probably know that advertisers exagerate and bend the definition of terms like "free". Is this morally right? No. Are there points where advertisers cross the line? Sure. (Case in point: "unlimited Internet access".) But you can't define "misleading" in absolute terms. It has to be in the context of the understanding of the advertisees.
I don't consider it to be free if I have to buy their service in order to get it, even if it is possible to cancel it later.
You may not, but this arrangement is quite common. For example, a popular geneology web site offers two week's "free" access to their archives if you sign up for their service and cancel before the two weeks is over. If you don't, then you get charged. Yes, there are strings attached, but I think almost everyone who sees the word "free" in an add understands that there will be strings.
Making it difficult to cancel moves it into the realm of "scam".
For the sake of argument, let's say that Experian does in fact make it overly difficult to cancel the mandatory subscription. Do you know that this is the reason Mike says the ads are misleading? My point is that if you are going to make such a strong statement, it would be proper to explain the justification in the post rather than relying on the reader to follow the included links or to leave it to the imagination of the reader.
Free means, I ask for something you are providing and you give it to me with no strings or further obligations.
You must live a very sheltered life to have this definition. There's the literal definition of free and there's the definition that everyone but the most niave understand to mean when they here "free" in the context of an advertisement. When the bank gives you a "free" toaster, they require you to sign up for an account. When the car dealership gives you a "free" ticket to the local professional sports team, they require you to take a test drive first. When the timeshare gives you a "free" weekend, they require you to sit through a seminar. There's no such thing as a free lunch, as they say.
If I told you I would wash your car for free, but then when you said OK I said well, you do have to sign this agreement that you will continue to let me wash your car, as well as check your oils and other liquids and you will have to pay me to do so, it's not really free is it
No, not really. Not literally. But in the context of advertising and the business world, this kind of arrangement is very common. If you're going to pick on Experian, then you'd have to hold every other single company to this same standard.
The FTC has been battling Experian and the other rating agencies for years over this blatantly misleading advertising.
Mike, that's a strong statement, but I don't see any justification for it in your post. (Maybe the proof is in some of the linked articles?) How exactly are Experian's ads misleading? Maybe Experian makes it overly difficult to cancel the required subscription service, but that seems to be a separate issue as to whether the actual ads are misleading. But FreeCreditReport.com actually does provide a free credit report.
Are you saying that because they don't tell its customers that the governemnt has a free credit report web site that doesn't have the subscription requirement, their ads are misleading? If that were the case, then every single commercial for bottled water would be misleading because they don't have warnings about how you can get (nearly) free water from your own tap.
Second, it is customary to get permission from the Brand Holder whenever you use their Branded Items in any type of recorded materials.
While it may be customary, it's not legally required. The only reason that it became customary was to avoid frivilous lawsuits from overly agressive trademark holders like LV.
Third, as has been stated over and again here, the law itself could be the causation for these lawsuits.
The thing is the law doesn't actually require that companies be this aggresive in protecting their trademark. The problem is that the company's actions is not based on defending the trademark in terms of its actual purpose i.e. consumer protection. Their actions stem from their belief that a trademark is an actual form of property i.e. "intellectual property". In other words, if they understood that the real purpose of trademark was to protect the consumer, all they'd have to do is apply the moron-in-a-hurry test to realize that they didn't need to sue. But because they view trademark as property, they feel like they had to sue (even though they don't).
Re: Re: Re: Thoughts from a property/casualty insurance underwriter
You cancelling your policy and/or others not purchasing one in the first place.
I think insurance companies know better than anyone exactly how much they can get away with without driving their customers away. So, if they can bump up the rates even by a little bit and "justify" it with some mumbo jumbo about social networks, they'll do it. Their own actuarial charts will tell them where the break even point for profitability is. Would this be fair? Most people would say no even in a healthy competative market where people have the choice to switch insurers.
Re: Thoughts from a property/casualty insurance underwriter
The carriers are unlikely to react to social media unless such data is actuarially sound.
And why is this? Maybe I'm being too much of a skeptic here, but the actual actuarial soundness of the justification to raise someone's rate would seem to pale in comparison to the perceived soundness. In other words, who's going to stop them from raising your rates and saying it's because "Your risky use of social media invites robbers into your house".
Is there some government regulation that that the risk factors have to make sense? And even if there is, aren't these factors ultimately subjective?
If the company did so, and it ever came out, the hit to Google's reputation would be something fierce.
I agree with your overall point, but I don't think the fact that a particular behavior would put a company's reputation at risk says much about whether or not a company would actually do it. If this were the case, Enron would never have fudged their accounting numbers. And, for that matter, Tiger Woods would have never cheated on his wife. These kinds of decisions are based on risk/reward, not just risk.
On the post: Switzerland So Neutral It Won't Even Let In Violent Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To what end?
On the post: Switzerland So Neutral It Won't Even Let In Violent Video Games
Re: Re: To what end?
It's precisely because of today's technology that they will be able to ban video games. Sure, Switzerland's borders are porous, but with much of today's DRM requiring a connection (sometimes constant) to the game company servers, there will be pressure on the game companies to restrict access based on country of origin. DRM isn't just a tool for protecting "IP"; it can also be used for censorship. Sure, this restriction can be easily circumvented, but the point is that the ban will have a dramatic effect on the freedoms of the Swiss.
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Re:
Speaking of misleading and innacurate, the point you're trying to make above is both. The problem is that the fact that SawStop holds the patent on this techology means you can't hide behind the "one example" clause. The issue of course is that if there were any other examples of this kind of "flesh detecting technology", they'd be sued by SawStop so fast, it'd make their heads spin! Based on my reading of the linked article, the lawsuit wasn't that Ryobi didn't use some hypothetical "other" safety technology that may or may not actually exist; the lawsuit was about them not using "a flesh-detecting technology like SawStop's" that, by definition of how the patent system works, could only be SawStop's technology. It's a Hobson's Choice.
On the post: Canon Becomes The Online Equivalent Of Madonna Or Prince, Becoming The First Single Word Domain Holder
On the post: Eddy Grant Accuses Gorillaz Of Copying After Gorillaz Manager Threatens People For Copying...
Re:
What makes this story doubly perplexing is that 95% of the people who even know who Eddie Grant is only know him for Electric Avenue and that isn't even the song Gorillaz are being accused of copying. Doh!
Also, about the worst song in history comment. This reminds me of those VH1 "top worst songs" shows. The thing is, if they really found the worst songs, they'd be by no one anyone ever heard of. What these shows should really be called is "Let's make fun of some videos that were popular at the time, but look silly in hind sight."
On the post: Eddy Grant Accuses Gorillaz Of Copying After Gorillaz Manager Threatens People For Copying...
Re:
So, you're saying it's not possible that The Gorillaz could be unaware that one of the trillion songs that have been recorded sounds roughly similar to their song? Rather than impossible, I think it's almost certain.
It's not like Gorillaz is some unknown band, they have the money to clear samples and/or give a writing credit to the guy : guilty.
But if you're the person from Gorillaz who wrote this song and you've never even heard the Eddie Grant song, you wouldn't even think to clear the sample of give writing credits because it wasn't a sample and you wrote it.
On the post: Heroes Producer: Honored To Be The Most Unauthorized Downloaded Show
Re: Re: Multiplatform crap
Nope. Just someone who got bored of a meandering and increasingly non-sensical story line.
Heroes has the largest following of any TV scifi currently on the air.
So, by your logic, Britney Spears is the best artist of the last decade. I'm not knocking popularity, but it's a far cry from proving quality.
As for Leno vs. Conan, I didn’t like how NBC handled it, but I’ve never been a big fan of Conan
Again, to each his own. On top of the shitty way that NBC handled it, the real issue is that NBC chose Leno who is guarenteed to appeal to more (mostly older) people in the short to very short term over someone who will appeal to a much broader audience in the longer term. Short sightendness FTL.
On the post: Heroes Producer: Honored To Be The Most Unauthorized Downloaded Show
Multiplatform crap
Not to get too snarky here, but even if they take Kring's advice on "multiplatform storytelling", it wouldn't change the fact that his show is crap. Putting a show that's lost its way on multiple platforms won't get NBC out of the trouble it's in. Making better shows will.
Oh, and one more thing...
Conan forever! Leno never!
On the post: Ubisoft's 'You Must Be Connected To This Server' Annoying DRM Servers Go Down
Affects even casual gamers
When casual gamers are affected, they'll put pressure on the retailers. When the retailers are affected, they'll put pressure on the publishers. Only when the pressure on the publishers gets high enough will there start to be change around the attitudes on DRM.
On the post: FTC Finally Forces FreeCreditReport.com To Be Honest In Its Advertising
Re: Re: Re: Re: How exactly are Experian's ad misleading?
Rather than a blanket defence of Experian, my question was merely meant to point out that the justification for Mike's strong statement was not actually included in the main text of the post. There very well could be mitigating circumstances that set Experian apart from your run-of-the-mill exagerations in advertising and warranted the action of the FTC.
I understand that Mike uses links to his previous posts and to other sites as a means to provide additional background on a particular topic. But in my opinion, when you make a statement as strong as he did in the post, you should include the justification for that statement in the main text of the post.
On the post: FTC Finally Forces FreeCreditReport.com To Be Honest In Its Advertising
Re: Re: Re: Re: How exactly are Experian's ad misleading?
Agreed. It's a good thing then that I'm not the only one who has become accustomed to this. Most people of a certain level of experience understand that a bit of stretching the truth in advertising is common practice. It's not just me; it's most of the population of the planet. Also, as I pointed out in another thread, I'm not saying this is right. Sure, in a perfect world, advertisers would be held accountable to the literal truth and there'd be no exageration or hyperbole in ads. But this isn't going to happen. So, feel free to tilt at windmills in your quest for utter truth in advertising while the rest of us lie down and take it. Personally, I think it'd be much more effective to focus in on cases where advertisers cross the line, even if this means there's some subjective debate on where to draw the line.
On the post: FTC Finally Forces FreeCreditReport.com To Be Honest In Its Advertising
Re: Re: Re: Re: How exactly are Experian's ad misleading?
No. Do you always jump to wild conclusions?
On the post: FTC Finally Forces FreeCreditReport.com To Be Honest In Its Advertising
Re: Re: Re: Re: How exactly are Experian's ad misleading?
Agreed. But what does that have to do with the topic? I didn't say it was right; I said it wasn't misleading. Unless you're very young or sheltered, you probably know that advertisers exagerate and bend the definition of terms like "free". Is this morally right? No. Are there points where advertisers cross the line? Sure. (Case in point: "unlimited Internet access".) But you can't define "misleading" in absolute terms. It has to be in the context of the understanding of the advertisees.
On the post: FTC Finally Forces FreeCreditReport.com To Be Honest In Its Advertising
Re: Re: How exactly are Experian's ad misleading?
You may not, but this arrangement is quite common. For example, a popular geneology web site offers two week's "free" access to their archives if you sign up for their service and cancel before the two weeks is over. If you don't, then you get charged. Yes, there are strings attached, but I think almost everyone who sees the word "free" in an add understands that there will be strings.
Making it difficult to cancel moves it into the realm of "scam".
For the sake of argument, let's say that Experian does in fact make it overly difficult to cancel the mandatory subscription. Do you know that this is the reason Mike says the ads are misleading? My point is that if you are going to make such a strong statement, it would be proper to explain the justification in the post rather than relying on the reader to follow the included links or to leave it to the imagination of the reader.
On the post: FTC Finally Forces FreeCreditReport.com To Be Honest In Its Advertising
Re: Re: How exactly are Experian's ad misleading?
You must live a very sheltered life to have this definition. There's the literal definition of free and there's the definition that everyone but the most niave understand to mean when they here "free" in the context of an advertisement. When the bank gives you a "free" toaster, they require you to sign up for an account. When the car dealership gives you a "free" ticket to the local professional sports team, they require you to take a test drive first. When the timeshare gives you a "free" weekend, they require you to sit through a seminar. There's no such thing as a free lunch, as they say.
If I told you I would wash your car for free, but then when you said OK I said well, you do have to sign this agreement that you will continue to let me wash your car, as well as check your oils and other liquids and you will have to pay me to do so, it's not really free is it
No, not really. Not literally. But in the context of advertising and the business world, this kind of arrangement is very common. If you're going to pick on Experian, then you'd have to hold every other single company to this same standard.
On the post: FTC Finally Forces FreeCreditReport.com To Be Honest In Its Advertising
How exactly are Experian's ad misleading?
Mike, that's a strong statement, but I don't see any justification for it in your post. (Maybe the proof is in some of the linked articles?) How exactly are Experian's ads misleading? Maybe Experian makes it overly difficult to cancel the required subscription service, but that seems to be a separate issue as to whether the actual ads are misleading. But FreeCreditReport.com actually does provide a free credit report.
Are you saying that because they don't tell its customers that the governemnt has a free credit report web site that doesn't have the subscription requirement, their ads are misleading? If that were the case, then every single commercial for bottled water would be misleading because they don't have warnings about how you can get (nearly) free water from your own tap.
On the post: Louis Vuitton Sues Hyundai Over A Louis Vuitton Basketball
Re: Hate Me Today
While it may be customary, it's not legally required. The only reason that it became customary was to avoid frivilous lawsuits from overly agressive trademark holders like LV.
Third, as has been stated over and again here, the law itself could be the causation for these lawsuits.
The thing is the law doesn't actually require that companies be this aggresive in protecting their trademark. The problem is that the company's actions is not based on defending the trademark in terms of its actual purpose i.e. consumer protection. Their actions stem from their belief that a trademark is an actual form of property i.e. "intellectual property". In other words, if they understood that the real purpose of trademark was to protect the consumer, all they'd have to do is apply the moron-in-a-hurry test to realize that they didn't need to sue. But because they view trademark as property, they feel like they had to sue (even though they don't).
On the post: Will Your Home Insurance Provider Jack Up Your Rates If Your Tweet Appears On PleaseRobMe?
Re: Re: Re: Thoughts from a property/casualty insurance underwriter
I think insurance companies know better than anyone exactly how much they can get away with without driving their customers away. So, if they can bump up the rates even by a little bit and "justify" it with some mumbo jumbo about social networks, they'll do it. Their own actuarial charts will tell them where the break even point for profitability is. Would this be fair? Most people would say no even in a healthy competative market where people have the choice to switch insurers.
On the post: Will Your Home Insurance Provider Jack Up Your Rates If Your Tweet Appears On PleaseRobMe?
Re: Thoughts from a property/casualty insurance underwriter
And why is this? Maybe I'm being too much of a skeptic here, but the actual actuarial soundness of the justification to raise someone's rate would seem to pale in comparison to the perceived soundness. In other words, who's going to stop them from raising your rates and saying it's because "Your risky use of social media invites robbers into your house".
Is there some government regulation that that the risk factors have to make sense? And even if there is, aren't these factors ultimately subjective?
On the post: Yes, Google Will Even Delete Its Own Employees' Sites From Google Index If They Screw Up
Risk/reward
I agree with your overall point, but I don't think the fact that a particular behavior would put a company's reputation at risk says much about whether or not a company would actually do it. If this were the case, Enron would never have fudged their accounting numbers. And, for that matter, Tiger Woods would have never cheated on his wife. These kinds of decisions are based on risk/reward, not just risk.
Next >>