It amazes me, 300 years ago it was recognized that copyright should be limited in scope. Too bad our current legislatures fail to grasp the intellect of Lord Kames.
Also, we never seem to stop and ask the question of how expensive implementing these absurd DRM solutions are to the consumer and the economy. Every time a DRM solution is developed it costs money to develop, it costs money to design in, it makes the products more complex and unreliable, it forces the consumer to "upgrade" and throw away good perfectly functioning equipment. In the end, why should anyone have to pay big $$$ so some schmuck can make a penny.
The Times writes: "Sprint’s marketing continues to be dragged down by public perception of poor service quality, the chief executive, Daniel R. Hesse, told investors in a conference call. While Sprint’s network and its customer service have improved, prospective customers have not noticed yet." Apparently Hesse is NOT in touch with reality.
Excellent point. This should also apply to all products, especially when a company "discontinues" a product.
But the devil is in the details. The problem that I see is that companies are now patenting concepts, such as "one-click". They are not patenting an actual device (asset). So what that means is that even if a patent troll owns a patent on some ambiguous "device" but someone else actually builds the device and puts it into the marketplace; the patent troll will still assert that the so-called patent is somehow in use, but that they were prevent by some nefarious obstruction from bringing it into the marketplace. For Grove's concept to work, we need to establish a clear definition of what a patent is and when a patent is actually put into use.
This may be a little story, but its a harbinger of what could happen at the grand scale if we do not have network neutrality. I can just envision each ISP channeling their customer only through "approved" affiliates and partners. Not a member of the approved channel, too bad, no connection for you. As an extra benefit, as you pass-through each portal, you will be entitled to pay a convenience fee for accessing the partner ISP.
Implicit in the statement: "Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited," is that they are making an assertion that have the right to create a "law" that you must abide by. Just because a company asserts that an activity is somehow "illegal" does NOT make it illegal.
Unilateral "contracts" should be declared unenforceable.
I would like to see government agencies develop some backbone and demand that if the (now) one company has non-proprietary code that can be inspected. It should be open code or NO contract. Period.
When public funds are used to buy products, the companies selling the products should have no right to insist that their products are "protected".
ConsumerAffairs.com reports: "In its advertising, the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida-based company had promised "top dollar" to people who send in their valuables to be melted down. But in a test conducted with the help of its sister company, Consumer Reports, Consumerist.com found that Cash4Gold offered as little as 11% of the "melt value" of gold necklaces that were submitted for appraisal. "The results reinforce advice we've offered before," the Consumerist.com report says, "which is that consumers should not use these services because the payments they offer are too low. No matter how nice the person is who gives it to you, a bad deal is still a bad deal."
One of the news programs ran a short expose on "Cash for Gold". I don't remember the news program or the company being "featured".
Anyway, the news program bought a gold pendent for $70 (retail). The cash they received from sending the pendent in to one of these "cash for gold" companies was $3.00. The news company in explaining this disparity pointed out that the value of the pendent, besides the $20 in gold, was in the marketing, styling, packaging etc.
Sounds reasonable until you realize that the reporters in their expose neglected highlighting that the fact that you where only getting $3.00 in cash for $20 in gold. So the "gold for cash" offer was only paying you cash for 15% of the actual gold value. I guess this points out how chicken-liver our reporters have become.
Seems to be another nail in the coffin that makes medical ever more problematic. Will doctors have to "license" virtually every diagnostic test and treatment?
Yes, Paul Melcher has made some weird comments. But there may be an inkling of understanding in what he writes. "Shoot commission work ... because commission will give you access to places, or people that are not available to the common mortal.
The value is no longer in the physical "product" itself, but in your "unique" ability to provide the customer with something they desire. Anyone can take a picture of you or take a picture of a landscape, but the photographer must somehow convince you that his/her personal photograph provides something uniquely creative that the other photographers can't.
This would be similar to the issues faced by the music industry. The value of the music is no longer in the physical CD, but in the ability to sell public performances to a customer base and selling the proverbial trinkets and T-Shirts.
Even if Sprint gave the Palm Pre for free, I wouldn't get it. Sprint is not a reputable company. They are still losing customers. You may have good technology, but it the company is bad, it will still fail.
It is the consumer who purchases products that keeps a product alive. Yet again we apparently have another case where two companies begin squabbling and may eventually reach a decision where they "win" at the expense of the consumer, who one day turns on their Kindle only to find the friendly greeting that they now have now been invited to spend more for content that they had previously purchased or plan to purchase.
If the consumer doesn't like this autocratic and unilateral change of service, too bad - you just lost your investment in the Kindle and its content.
Points to what is wrong with our patent system. I don't have a problem with a patent on a lawn sprinkler that has actual design drawings. However, the idea of an oscillating lawn sprinkler cannot be patented.
The patent system should leave a competitor free to design another version of an oscillating lawn sprinkler. (It seems that the concept of reverse engineering has been hounded out of existence.)
Abstract concepts, such as business models or the concept of an Oscillating Law Sprinkler should not be patented.
The Times wrote: "Last week The Associated Press said it would put warnings against copyright violation on its articles and digitally track illegitimate uses. It didn’t say what it would do to violators, but it has been quick to use legal means to block reuse of its material.
A start-up called Attributor, based in Redwood City, Calif., is proposing an approach that is more carrot than stick. It has developed an automated way for newspapers to share in the advertising revenue from even the tiniest sites that copy their articles."
I will admit to not reading the entire paper, but based on the first few pages the argument for non-copyright is a bit off. It is off since Shavell has not asked the question of whether publishers are even needed and appears to be discussing his copyright viewpoint based on the necessity for publication, and the expense the publisher has to endure for publishing.
Shavell wrote "The conclusion that I draw from the foregoing is that if publication fees would be
largely defrayed by universities and grantors, as I suggest would be to their advantage...." and "The conclusion that I draw from the foregoing is that if publication fees would be largely defrayed by universities and grantors, as I suggest would be to their advantage."
Technology, has solved our need for a publisher. We no longer need the publisher. The fact that we continue to submit material to a publisher simply represents old thinking. Publications can now be published electronically by the researchers themselves with the University library acting as a repository for that research. This also essentially eliminates the costs of production.
What is the difference between having a hard copy of a book occupying space in some obscure dust covered rack or an electronic book, just as long as it isn't a Kindle. None.
In fact, electronic versions of material can be searched much more efficiently than a hard copy version, so there is another benefit to not going to a publisher.
Hopefully Shavell has made some of these observations further into his paper.
On the post: Lord Kames Explains Why Copyright Is Not Property... In 1773
Acknolwedgement of a Limited Monopoly
On the post: Bad Ideas: Trying To Make Content More Like Physical Property
The Quest for the Endless Toll Booth
Forbes, by the way, ran a similar story: A Scheme For Protecting Content.
Also, we never seem to stop and ask the question of how expensive implementing these absurd DRM solutions are to the consumer and the economy. Every time a DRM solution is developed it costs money to develop, it costs money to design in, it makes the products more complex and unreliable, it forces the consumer to "upgrade" and throw away good perfectly functioning equipment. In the end, why should anyone have to pay big $$$ so some schmuck can make a penny.
On the post: Sprint Offers Palm Pre For $100 For A Month, Maybe Two... Then, Oops, Not At All
Sprint Bad
NY Times article: Sprint Nextel Loss Widens as Subscribers Decline
The Times writes: "Sprint’s marketing continues to be dragged down by public perception of poor service quality, the chief executive, Daniel R. Hesse, told investors in a conference call. While Sprint’s network and its customer service have improved, prospective customers have not noticed yet." Apparently Hesse is NOT in touch with reality.
On the post: Andy Grove On Patents: You Should Use 'Em Or Lose 'Em
But What Consitutes "Use"?
But the devil is in the details. The problem that I see is that companies are now patenting concepts, such as "one-click". They are not patenting an actual device (asset). So what that means is that even if a patent troll owns a patent on some ambiguous "device" but someone else actually builds the device and puts it into the marketplace; the patent troll will still assert that the so-called patent is somehow in use, but that they were prevent by some nefarious obstruction from bringing it into the marketplace. For Grove's concept to work, we need to establish a clear definition of what a patent is and when a patent is actually put into use.
On the post: NY Post Reporter Admits That It's Company Policy Not To Credit Blogs Or Other Sources
Hypocrisy
On the post: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?
The Real Implications
On the post: MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend
Corporatism - Corporations Making "Law".
Unilateral "contracts" should be declared unenforceable.
On the post: MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend
Copyfraud
Wikipedia Entry.
On the post: Diebold Finally Dumps E-Voting Division... But Sells It To Equally Problematic ES&S
Voting Machines - Open Code
When public funds are used to buy products, the companies selling the products should have no right to insist that their products are "protected".
On the post: Cash4Gold Sues Consumerist, Complaints Board Over Reports On Cash4Gold Practices
Re: 15% on the Dollar
Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/09/cash4gold_consumerist.html#ixzz0Pz8CGyPH
On the post: Cash4Gold Sues Consumerist, Complaints Board Over Reports On Cash4Gold Practices
15% on the Dollar
Anyway, the news program bought a gold pendent for $70 (retail). The cash they received from sending the pendent in to one of these "cash for gold" companies was $3.00. The news company in explaining this disparity pointed out that the value of the pendent, besides the $20 in gold, was in the marketing, styling, packaging etc.
Sounds reasonable until you realize that the reporters in their expose neglected highlighting that the fact that you where only getting $3.00 in cash for $20 in gold. So the "gold for cash" offer was only paying you cash for 15% of the actual gold value. I guess this points out how chicken-liver our reporters have become.
On the post: USPTO: Using Three Knowledge Bases To Diagnose Is Patentable
Medical Care Extortion
On the post: Being Unique Is Not The Same As Exclusive (Or Scarce)
Re: Manifesto for a Photographer revolution
Mr. Melcher does not seem very "bohemian".
On the post: Being Unique Is Not The Same As Exclusive (Or Scarce)
Build a Customer Base
The value is no longer in the physical "product" itself, but in your "unique" ability to provide the customer with something they desire. Anyone can take a picture of you or take a picture of a landscape, but the photographer must somehow convince you that his/her personal photograph provides something uniquely creative that the other photographers can't.
This would be similar to the issues faced by the music industry. The value of the music is no longer in the physical CD, but in the ability to sell public performances to a customer base and selling the proverbial trinkets and T-Shirts.
On the post: Why Sprint Should Be Giving Away The Palm Pre For Free
Sprint Bad
On the post: Amazon Wins Lawsuit Saying It Didn't Infringe On One Click Patent (A Different One)
Spin Doctors at Work
On the post: Murdoch Now Demanding Names Of Kindle Subscribers
Again the Consumer is Irrelevent
If the consumer doesn't like this autocratic and unilateral change of service, too bad - you just lost your investment in the Kindle and its content.
On the post: Court Strikes Down Blackboard E-Learning Patent
Re: Re: Oscillating Law Sprinkler
The patent system should leave a competitor free to design another version of an oscillating lawn sprinkler. (It seems that the concept of reverse engineering has been hounded out of existence.)
Abstract concepts, such as business models or the concept of an Oscillating Law Sprinkler should not be patented.
On the post: How Reuters Should Be Responding To The AP's Suicide
Volunteering to be Out-of-Business
The Times wrote: "Last week The Associated Press said it would put warnings against copyright violation on its articles and digitally track illegitimate uses. It didn’t say what it would do to violators, but it has been quick to use legal means to block reuse of its material.
A start-up called Attributor, based in Redwood City, Calif., is proposing an approach that is more carrot than stick. It has developed an automated way for newspapers to share in the advertising revenue from even the tiniest sites that copy their articles."
On the post: Should Copyright Be Abolished On Academic Work?
Publishing No Longer Necessary
Shavell wrote "The conclusion that I draw from the foregoing is that if publication fees would be
largely defrayed by universities and grantors, as I suggest would be to their advantage...." and "The conclusion that I draw from the foregoing is that if publication fees would be largely defrayed by universities and grantors, as I suggest would be to their advantage."
Technology, has solved our need for a publisher. We no longer need the publisher. The fact that we continue to submit material to a publisher simply represents old thinking. Publications can now be published electronically by the researchers themselves with the University library acting as a repository for that research. This also essentially eliminates the costs of production.
What is the difference between having a hard copy of a book occupying space in some obscure dust covered rack or an electronic book, just as long as it isn't a Kindle. None.
In fact, electronic versions of material can be searched much more efficiently than a hard copy version, so there is another benefit to not going to a publisher.
Hopefully Shavell has made some of these observations further into his paper.
Next >>