I marked your comment funny, because other publications that are not putting up paywalls do hold a candle to the NY Times, and because "added value" is value that entices people to pay for something that used to be free. The NY Times has done nothing to their offering besides adding a paywall. Hence, no added value to entice us to pay for what we could (and still can) get for free. You either knew that and were making a joke, or else the joke is on you and the NY Times.
Just to play devil's advocate, maybe it's Kaplan that's pointing out the hypocrisy of the music industry with that tweet. They get made and sue, so he says "why didn't you just ask nicely? I'm willing to share." Or maybe not.
Oh, I certainly agree that a privacy concern exists. My question is more about what happens to this concern when/if almost everyone is posting this information all of the time. Does every expectation of privacy evaporate? And more than this, do we end up with an environment where we expect law enforcement to be actively monitoring this information? For example, what if I have a restraining order against you, and you violate that order. Should the police just know? That's only one relevant scenario in which this type of information being freely available is relevant, and I ask about this stuff only because it looks like this is the direction in which our society could potentially head. More and more people seem to be completely unconcerned with their privacy, and there is a cultural incentive to share more and more information about ourselves. Does a concern like the one this exposes have relevance for those people (and not just the "curmudgeons" that keep themselves off the social "grid," as it were)?
I see how this relates to the concern of what data the government has access to without our permission, but I'm much more interested in what society looks like when we can all do this to each other? So many people participate in geo location services, and more and more of them are turning on automatic check ins. Does the government's intrusion into records like this have much meaning when people are completely exposing themselves? I'm honestly asking that question, not trying to argue the answer is no.
You're right. She didn't work for any of the companies in the suite. She (immediately prior to this) worked as a lobbyist of an organization that would greatly benefit should this ruling stand. If that is not enough of a conflict for you, maybe the fact that these companies are members of an organization (MPAA) that has extremely close ties to the RIAA and would also likely benefit is enough? No? Well then, yeah, she didn't work for those specific companies.
I imagine a lot of the problem is the proximity in time and subject matter to her previous position. She was just recently appointed, and the work she did immediately before her appointment was as an RIAA lobbyist. I agree that topical overlap may occur often, but (as a Supreme Court example) Justice Kagan recused herself when she had been working on a case right before she was appointed that then came before the court, and it's arguable that this situation is somewhere int the same neighborhood of relevance, since this judge's entire job was to advance the goals of the RIAA. To me it actually looks like an even larger conflict of interest in this instance.
As for your second point, a federal appellate lawyer friend of mine recently said the same thing about 3 judge panels. Apparently, even without a conflict of interest, some judges make bad decisions. Shocking, I know.
The judge in question was a lobbyist, and we all know all lobbyists are women. But if that wasn't enough to tell you the judge is a "she," I think the part where Mike said "Howell herself" should also have been a give away.
Couple things here. First, it doesn't matter if licenses don't permit transformative use, that's what a fair use analysis is for. Second, the other commenter (or was it you?) was making the point that the analogy does not hold, or at least that's the point I thought they (you?) were making. You seem to be saying it works just fine. I'd personally not mind seeing a similar mechanical license for covering photos in the same way that covers cannot be stopped in the music industry, but I think fair use is a much better mechanism for evaluating how much Prince or I brought to the table, and whether the markets for the works overlap, etc.
Re: I have to quibble with the photography statement
I'm pretty sure you're making Mike's point. You ARE just making a few choices, but the cumulative effect is massive, and no one is saying that making the "right" choices is easy. Other choices you make are your subject, time of day, etc. But again, this is not all that different from Prince. Even if you think he is lacking in skill and making the "wrong" choices, he is making choices about what to add/change, and he is taking advantage of the same post processing you mention in order to do so.
So if you're performing something live, that automatically gets to be "art" even if you're attempting to duplicate the old song as closely as you can? And yet, in a piece of art, when you're attempting to make a completely different statement from the one made in the original, it's not art simply because the original is a large component of the work? How does this make any sense? If I edit an actual smile to the Mona Lisa, I've changed the entire tone of the work, and have probably done something much less noteworthy than Da Vinci, but I've definitely created something different, since you would simply not have the same reaction to the painting any more. Even if you think I've merely ruined it, everything about the portrait has changed, and that only requires on very small alteration. Also, what exactly does "he added so little 'new," that it wasn't really new at all" even mean? Did he add something new or didn't he?
Re: TM law is about unfair competition, not consumer protection
And what do you think the purpose of unfair competition law is exactly? To "help" businesses, in some sort of vacuum? You're unnecessarily splitting hairs. Generally, the confusion that occurs is determined from the point of view of the consumer. You are merely describing the other side of the coin here. Of course businesses want to protect their brand from unfair competition. But there is a corollary interest in protecting consumers from confusion in the marketplace. These forces work together to create a more efficient market. Unfair competition law in general promotes an efficient marketplace, and trademark law specifically does so by addressing consumer confusion.
Re: Re: Doesn't your very article explain WHY Apple should be suing??
And unfortunately it's working quite well. I mentioned a new "app" I found the other day to a colleague of mine, and they responded, "But wait, I thought you could only get 'apps' on the iPhone." True story..... (I felt like an jerk explaining that app was an abbreviation for application/program, because I could see them feeling embarrassed as I did).
(Meant to reply to this comment, not the other, sorry Mike...)
I assumed the model was 3,000 slots available, come pay what you want and the highest 3,000 supporters get the stylus. Instead, it only has 3,000 slots period? It seems like the uncertainty of determining who gets it once funding has closed would be a way to get people to compete with higher prices, rather than paying as little as they think they can get away with to fund the project. Then again, I can also see the uncertainty causing some to not give at all, wary that their contribution will be just barely not enough once funding is closed, and if enough people felt that way, it could cause the project to not meet the goal at all. Time for another experiment to find out which works better?
I assumed the model was 3,000 slots available, come pay what you want and the highest 3,000 supporters get the stylus. Instead, it only has 3,000 slots period? It seems like the uncertainty of determining who gets it once funding has closed would be a way to get people to compete with higher prices, rather than paying as little as they think they can get away with to fund the project. Then again, I can also see the uncertainty causing some to not give at all, wary that their contribution will be just barely not enough once funding is closed, and if enough people felt that way, it could cause the project to not meet the goal at all. Time for another experiment to find out which works better?
If the logic is that one should be able to patent genes because finding them is expensive, and now sequencing is becoming cheaper, it starts to sound like companies looking for genes to patent have every incentive to slow down the progress of the development of cheaper sequencing technology so as to maximize the strength of arguments for gene patents. That's one heck of a backwards incentive to stifle progress in order to preserve an IP interest. I wonder if cheaper gene sequencing would not have come along earlier had this incentive not existed...
On the post: The Emperor's New Paywall
Re: Added Value
On the post: You Would Think The Recording Industry's Main Magazine Wouldn't Copy Other's Works Without Permission
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: You Would Think The Recording Industry's Main Magazine Wouldn't Copy Other's Works Without Permission
Re: Re:
On the post: Replay Six Months Of A German Politician's Life Thanks To His Mobile Phone Data
Re: Re: But what about the Public Public?
On the post: Replay Six Months Of A German Politician's Life Thanks To His Mobile Phone Data
But what about the Public Public?
On the post: Judge Who Said Lumping Together Unrelated Copyright Cases Is Fine... Is A Former RIAA Lobbyist
Re: Conflict of interest?
On the post: Judge Who Said Lumping Together Unrelated Copyright Cases Is Fine... Is A Former RIAA Lobbyist
Re: Honestly, how rare is this?
As for your second point, a federal appellate lawyer friend of mine recently said the same thing about 3 judge panels. Apparently, even without a conflict of interest, some judges make bad decisions. Shocking, I know.
On the post: Judge Who Said Lumping Together Unrelated Copyright Cases Is Fine... Is A Former RIAA Lobbyist
Re:
On the post: Why Do Some People Have A Mythical Standard Of 'Newness' To Determine What Qualifies As Art?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Do Some People Have A Mythical Standard Of 'Newness' To Determine What Qualifies As Art?
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Do Some People Have A Mythical Standard Of 'Newness' To Determine What Qualifies As Art?
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Do Some People Have A Mythical Standard Of 'Newness' To Determine What Qualifies As Art?
Re:
On the post: Why Do Some People Have A Mythical Standard Of 'Newness' To Determine What Qualifies As Art?
Re: I have to quibble with the photography statement
On the post: Why Do Some People Have A Mythical Standard Of 'Newness' To Determine What Qualifies As Art?
Re:
On the post: The Great Language Landgrab... A Result Of Misunderstanding Trademark Law
Re: TM law is about unfair competition, not consumer protection
On the post: The Great Language Landgrab... A Result Of Misunderstanding Trademark Law
Re: Re: Doesn't your very article explain WHY Apple should be suing??
On the post: Can Pay What You Want Work For Tangible Goods? Perhaps With Kickstarter...
Re: Re: Re: Average price
I assumed the model was 3,000 slots available, come pay what you want and the highest 3,000 supporters get the stylus. Instead, it only has 3,000 slots period? It seems like the uncertainty of determining who gets it once funding has closed would be a way to get people to compete with higher prices, rather than paying as little as they think they can get away with to fund the project. Then again, I can also see the uncertainty causing some to not give at all, wary that their contribution will be just barely not enough once funding is closed, and if enough people felt that way, it could cause the project to not meet the goal at all. Time for another experiment to find out which works better?
On the post: Can Pay What You Want Work For Tangible Goods? Perhaps With Kickstarter...
Re: Re: Re: Average price
On the post: Enclosing The Ocean Commons
Cheap Gene Sequencing
On the post: Geohot Goes On Vacation; Sony Accuses Him Of Fleeing Legal Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: SATA cables
Next >>