John Manchester had an excellent comment on the article: "Intellectual property rights are a misnomer - they are real rights granted to corporations/patent holders to control your property."
As Mike correctly notes, when you own something you have a "right of first sale". The sellers of merchandise to not have a right to deny you, post sale, the use of your property. When you buy something you acquire a property right to the use of that product.
You are correct to say that "I can't force them to serve me against their will,..", but you missing the point. Let's suppose you buy a game and that game calls home every time you run it. Now the game company introduces a new version of the game and disables your ability to play that game. You bought that game and have an entitlement (property right) to use that game, the game company does not have the right to trespass onto or inspect your equipment to do whatever they want. You have rights too, learn to stand-up for them.
Good advice, but of dubious value. Are you going to pay an attorney $$$$ to look at the EULA for a $50 game?
Perhaps even more egregious, do you think you would ever find someone at the game company who would actually negotiate the terms of a contract?
Personally, if any contract is to be considered valid these companies must provide you with a representative to discuss the terms of the purchase. The current approach of "contract by adhesion" should simply, in my opinion, be made illegal.
My original wording was convoluted. This is about regulation. Theirer's thesis is that innovation will occur naturally therefore we don't need regulation. This is logically flawed.
Hence my FDA example. While we live, we still need regulations to assure that our food is safe. The fact that we die (or that an innovative product dies) has very little to do with an immediate need, if required, to regulate food quality (device neutrality).
The assertion that "There's just something when we see a dominant technology out there that makes people assume that no one will ever out innovate it, and then fear that we're stuck with the dominant player forever." Therefore "... worrying about things like exclusive arrangements or if the platform is too closed off may be a waste of time. is a bogus argument. In the logical extreme this is equivalent to saying saying that we are all going to die so there is no point in worrying about things like the FDA making sure that your food is safe.
The the purpose of this type of misdirection is to detract from side issues such as the responsibility of the vendor to deliver value to the customer. While everything comes to a natural end, eventually; vendors now have the capability to unnaturally "turn-off" your devices whenever it suites them. Thus your expensive device becomes a paper weight.
Yes the market should determine when a product has become terminal. However, companies should be constrained in taking arbitrary unilateral actions that damages the property that the customers have bought.
We need to put an end to this fiction that the manufacturers of a retail product can somehow retain unreasonable control over a product. Just because they make these ridiculous assertions does not mean that they are enforceable.
I think Pawar's is combining two concepts into one. First, to answer the question of patents promoting innovation/invention is backwards. Innovation/invention is the result of someone having a Eureka moment. Patents and copyright, while they may provide a safety net of sorts, do not create innovation. How many people find that reading the copyright/patent law every night inspirational?
Second, how is Pawar's concept really two concepts? Based on the short sample, there does not appear to be a recognition that companies are attempting to lock customers into a specific product and its derivatives. Pawar notes that: "There will be only one smart phone in this world" and that the phones are sync to specific companies. However, the driving force of the patents on these devices is to create defined boundaries that keep customers locked in. This approach has nothing, absolutely nothing, with using patents to promote innovation. An extreme view of this scenario is that patents are actually ANTI-innovative.
Re: Re: The Very Concept of "Sale" has been Under Attack
Acquiring a property right to use a product does not translate into using that product in an illegal manner. I can buy a car, but I will still get a speeding ticket if I drive to fast.
You are quite confused. If I buy a CD, I should be able to copy it onto my MP3 Player as I have acquired the property right to use that music. If I buy a Play Station, I have a right to hack it as I have acquired the property right to use the play station. If I buy a cell phone, I have a right to jailbreak it because I have acquired the property right to that cell phone.
I also have the right to develop my own applications to run on any devices that I buy.
It is time to put an end to the end-run of claiming that products that you bought were merely licensed and that your use of the product is at the sufferance of the product maker.
When you buy a product you acquire a property right to use that product as you wish.
We need to debunk the myth that TI and most "sellers" of electronic equipment somehow retain a property right to what you bought. When you buy a product, you obtain a property right to use that product. That means that you have the right to modify it.
We can pull out the usual analogy to the automobile, when you buy the car, you have the ability to make modifications to it. Including the ability to modify the engine.
It's unfortunate that too many people unthinkingly accept the premise that the manufactures somehow retain an undeserved ownership privilege.
The logic of "kicking someone off the internet" for some sort of perceived "violation" is absurd.
Suppose a student is behind on paying off his/her JC Penny's credit card. JC Penny, applying this logic logic, can go to the University and have that person expelled from the internet!!!
One can only hope that the Universities develop a backbone and tell the MPAA and the RIAA to take-a-hike. Universities are there to teach, not to act as private police force for the benefit of the MPAA or the RIAA.
While the focus is on expense of enforcement, we are missing the "bigger picture". Why should an ISP even be involved in protecting a third party?
Imagine some guy walks up to you points to a house and demands that you break into that house to see if there is some supposedly stolen property there and if it is there for you to retrieve it for his benefit. Would you feel obligated to do it?
Even an ISP was somehow required to protect a third party, who should pay for it? I would advocate that the RIAA and the MPAA would have to pay the ISPs for this "service". It should NOT be a cost that is passed on to all customers of the ISP.
Finally, what gives the ISP the right to read (inspect) your packets? When you give something to the US Post Office, UPS, or Fedex - you expect the package to be delivered unopened.
So if the MPAA or the RIAA can somehow convince a judge that reading the "mail" is acceptable, where will it end? Every special interest group will demand that they have a right to read your mail to protect what-ever-it-is that they are protecting.
While it makes no economic sense to spend gobs of money enforcing something that can't be enforced, we are also faced with the specter of corporations using the power of the State to eliminate our freedoms to protect their revenue stream.
The Wallet wrote "Credit reporting agencies — Experian, Equifax and TransUnion — earn money any time a consumer or a lender purchases a credit score through them. FICO also earns money for selling their scores."
If we apply the logic of the MPAA/RIAA/Associated Press regarding the use of data that they claim to own, we should be getting a royalty payment each time these credit companies use our "private" data. If it is OK for these firms to privatize our data for their benefit, then there is nothing wrong for us in using data that is freely available.
Its not simply a question of understanding technology. Lawyers seem to believe that a "solution" can be obtained for any issue provided it is psychoanalyzed ad nauseam. Whether the "solution" can ever be implemented in the real world, is totally irrelevant. Needles to say this results in ludicrous decisions.
To follow-up on Richard's point, those advocating a "strong" copyright assert that they have a right to invade your "territory" at their will in order to enforce their so-called rights. They even go so far as to demand that third parties, such as Universities "monitor" internet traffic to protect their so-called property. Clearly, if allowed to continue, this will make a mockery of privacy and our legal system, especially due process.
The those advocating "strong" copyright, such as the RIAA write: "You might also inform them that our nation's Founders included copyright protection in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), believing that it would encourage creativity by giving the creators of intellectual property an exclusive right to profit from their artistic talents.".
But they neglect to mention is that that the copyright of today is NOT the Copyright Act of 1790; which what the Nation's Founders passed.
Of course the above quote from the RIAA left out two important concepts: for a limited time and to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Regretfully too many people now believe that the purpose of copyright is to provide the content creator with a guaranteed and endless revenue stream.
On the post: More Industry Anti-Piracy Propaganda: Former EMI Anti-Piracy Boss Launches 'Educational' Program
You don't even own your own property
On the post: Can A Radio Station Give Away Tickets To A Football Game? The Eagles Say No...
You Bought it You Own It
On the post: The iPhone Is Not The End Of Innovation
Re: Re: Undisclosed Issues
On the post: The iPhone Is Not The End Of Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Undisclosed Issues
Perhaps even more egregious, do you think you would ever find someone at the game company who would actually negotiate the terms of a contract?
Personally, if any contract is to be considered valid these companies must provide you with a representative to discuss the terms of the purchase. The current approach of "contract by adhesion" should simply, in my opinion, be made illegal.
On the post: The iPhone Is Not The End Of Innovation
Re: Re: Undisclosed Issues
Hence my FDA example. While we live, we still need regulations to assure that our food is safe. The fact that we die (or that an innovative product dies) has very little to do with an immediate need, if required, to regulate food quality (device neutrality).
On the post: The iPhone Is Not The End Of Innovation
Re: Re: Undisclosed Issues
On the post: The iPhone Is Not The End Of Innovation
Undisclosed Issues
The the purpose of this type of misdirection is to detract from side issues such as the responsibility of the vendor to deliver value to the customer. While everything comes to a natural end, eventually; vendors now have the capability to unnaturally "turn-off" your devices whenever it suites them. Thus your expensive device becomes a paper weight.
Yes the market should determine when a product has become terminal. However, companies should be constrained in taking arbitrary unilateral actions that damages the property that the customers have bought.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
It's Your Property
See the TechDirt Article: Ownership Or License: The Difference Matters
We need to put an end to this fiction that the manufacturers of a retail product can somehow retain unreasonable control over a product. Just because they make these ridiculous assertions does not mean that they are enforceable.
On the post: What Kind Of Innovation Do Patents Encourage?
Innovation/Invention are Flashbulbs
Second, how is Pawar's concept really two concepts? Based on the short sample, there does not appear to be a recognition that companies are attempting to lock customers into a specific product and its derivatives. Pawar notes that: "There will be only one smart phone in this world" and that the phones are sync to specific companies. However, the driving force of the patents on these devices is to create defined boundaries that keep customers locked in. This approach has nothing, absolutely nothing, with using patents to promote innovation. An extreme view of this scenario is that patents are actually ANTI-innovative.
On the post: Ownership Or License: The Difference Matters
Re: Re: The Very Concept of "Sale" has been Under Attack
On the post: Ownership Or License: The Difference Matters
Re: Dazed and confused
I also have the right to develop my own applications to run on any devices that I buy.
On the post: Ownership Or License: The Difference Matters
The Very Concept of "Sale" has been Under Attack
When you buy a product you acquire a property right to use that product as you wish.
On the post: Texas Instruments Goes Legal On Calculator Hackers: How Dare You Make Our Product Better!
It is Your Property to do with as you Please
We can pull out the usual analogy to the automobile, when you buy the car, you have the ability to make modifications to it. Including the ability to modify the engine.
It's unfortunate that too many people unthinkingly accept the premise that the manufactures somehow retain an undeserved ownership privilege.
On the post: Having ISPs Fight Piracy Could Cost More Than Claimed 'Losses' From Piracy
Re: Re: buy more stuff
Suppose a student is behind on paying off his/her JC Penny's credit card. JC Penny, applying this logic logic, can go to the University and have that person expelled from the internet!!!
One can only hope that the Universities develop a backbone and tell the MPAA and the RIAA to take-a-hike. Universities are there to teach, not to act as private police force for the benefit of the MPAA or the RIAA.
On the post: Having ISPs Fight Piracy Could Cost More Than Claimed 'Losses' From Piracy
Where is the Due Process?
Imagine some guy walks up to you points to a house and demands that you break into that house to see if there is some supposedly stolen property there and if it is there for you to retrieve it for his benefit. Would you feel obligated to do it?
Even an ISP was somehow required to protect a third party, who should pay for it? I would advocate that the RIAA and the MPAA would have to pay the ISPs for this "service". It should NOT be a cost that is passed on to all customers of the ISP.
Finally, what gives the ISP the right to read (inspect) your packets? When you give something to the US Post Office, UPS, or Fedex - you expect the package to be delivered unopened.
So if the MPAA or the RIAA can somehow convince a judge that reading the "mail" is acceptable, where will it end? Every special interest group will demand that they have a right to read your mail to protect what-ever-it-is that they are protecting.
While it makes no economic sense to spend gobs of money enforcing something that can't be enforced, we are also faced with the specter of corporations using the power of the State to eliminate our freedoms to protect their revenue stream.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Patenting Basic Medical Diagnostic Process Is Just Fine
On the post: 'Free Credit Score' Company Tries To Unmask Anonymous Blogger; Sues Wikipedia
Where are my Royalty Payments?
If we apply the logic of the MPAA/RIAA/Associated Press regarding the use of data that they claim to own, we should be getting a royalty payment each time these credit companies use our "private" data. If it is OK for these firms to privatize our data for their benefit, then there is nothing wrong for us in using data that is freely available.
On the post: Is It Too Much To Expect Judges In Tech Related Cases To Understand Tech?
Beyond Tech
On the post: Is Copyright Law Compatible With Privacy Rights?
Our Legal System at Risk
On the post: A Look At The RIAA's Copyright Propaganda For Schools
Orwell would be Proud
The those advocating "strong" copyright, such as the RIAA write: "You might also inform them that our nation's Founders included copyright protection in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), believing that it would encourage creativity by giving the creators of intellectual property an exclusive right to profit from their artistic talents.".
But they neglect to mention is that that the copyright of today is NOT the Copyright Act of 1790; which what the Nation's Founders passed.
Of course the above quote from the RIAA left out two important concepts: for a limited time and to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Regretfully too many people now believe that the purpose of copyright is to provide the content creator with a guaranteed and endless revenue stream.
Next >>