Actually, involving intent does not necessarily have the effect you imagine. The arsonist intended to commit an illegal act. The fact that that illegal act had more consequences than he imagined does not detract from the fact that those are consequences of his illegal act. So he should face consequences for that too. However, flip the cases around and see if that makes more sense. First case: an arsonist sets a building on fire. A person happens to be inside and died while the arsonist thought the building was empty. Second Case: An arsonist waits until someone is inside a building before he sets the building on fire killing the person. Don't you think the second arsonist should face a stronger punishment than the first? I mean, isn't killing someone intentionally worst than killing someone unintentionally?
Also, the US really needs to reduce its sentences... It's ridiculous and useless. When someone commits a crime, they assume that they will not get caught. They don't calculate the expected value of their jail sentence and the expected value of the benefit from the crime comparing which is higher. Basically, if you present someone with a 20 year sentence, they will act almost the same way as facing a 30, 50, 100 year sentence... It's forever and they REALLY don't want it. However, your wallet feels the difference between keeping a guy fed, housed and guarded for 10, 20 or 100 years...
I think there should be a rule that if a patent is overturned, the examiner who approved it should be fired and pay a hefty fine for not doing his job right.
I think that this is very telling of the times we live in when it comes to IP. If I didn't think through my reaction to someone using something I made, I would be thrilled and ask them how it's working out for them, not offended and ready to sue. Why should suing be the first reaction? It reminds me of a recent conversation I had with a family member. I was preping for an interview with a software firm by putting together a little piece of software that would show off some of my skills. (Actually cleaning up something I had made in the past) I thought I would bring it over and give it to them to show off how I really do have the skills I am claiming. My family member's reaction was to warn me to copyright the thing first. Why? It was a piece of software I made which did not do a whole lot and there were plenty of equivalent Open Source and proprietary equivalents that did even more stuff... There was absolutely no reason for me to prevent people from using that. Also, if the company did "steal" it from me an marketed it with success, I could easily go to their competitors and say: "Look at what those guys are selling. I made it and I can make similar stuff. Hire me." It took a while for my relative to understand, but eventually, he said: "Oh... I guess you're doing it because it's not in the 'Linux' spirit." I gave up on explaining and just agreed. I think it's sad that everyone's instinct nowadays is to lock up IP as tight as possible. And those of us who feel there are better things to do with our time and feel we might benefit from the notoriety of writing software valuable enough to be "stolen" are just linux-loving idealists... I think that mentality is costing a lot of smart people money and is costing us their innovation.
Actually, I don't see why shield laws would not apply to national security cases. (even if there was a fair review process that determined if the case in question concerned national security) I mean, journalists either gain the info the gov't wants because they are contacted by the source in which case, if sources know shield laws won't apply, the source just won't contact the journalist and then the journalist won't have the info. Or journalists gain the info through investigation, in which case, the same investigation could be done by gov't agencies. I mean, this is basically saying that if the government says so, journalists suddenly become an investigative arm of the state. That's infringing on liberties and useless.
My university used to have a movie marathon during finals which was a really enjoyable way to relax. You knew that no matter the time of day or night, there would be a movie showing and a bunch of people to enjoy it with. However, we got letters from the MPAA with the result of a) someone springing for the public showing fees or b) everybody going to buy the movies we would have otherwise watched c) people moving away from movies as entertainment during that time? The answer was c.
"because I was brought up to obey the laws....most of them anyway haha."
"Anyway if you have nothing to hide, you obviously have nothing to fear. Though if they have nothing to convict then they need not be suspecting me either."
That's the point. We all have something to hide. If you think you have broken no laws on any one day, you are probably wrong. Picked up some change off the street recently? Did you report it on your taxes? Did you return the found property to the police station so it could be returned to its owner? And the list goes on.
Listen to this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#
You'll see what I mean...
I recently immigrated to the US and I can agree that it is a real pain in the behind. I can understand the desire to not have someone live off welfare, but it is ridiculous. Under my extended student visa I had a decent job which paid me enough to not live off anyone except myself. However, when I tried to get my green card based on marriage to a US citizen, it took a year so by the middle of the process, I had to quit my job. Now, normally, they give you a temporary work authorization while they consider your application which would have allowed me to resume work. However, because I was no longer working, my application was suddenly insufficient and I could not get my work authorization back and they were threatening to deny my application unless I got someone to sponsor me. Yes, that's right, I was not allowed to work because I was not making enough money to qualify for a work authorization... What kind of a stupid idea is that? By the time my work authorization came in, my company, had had to find someone else and was not interested in rehiring me. (Nor were many people given the economic crisis)
I mean, seriously... All I want is be able to work here, pay my taxes and live with my wife in her country of origin. Why was there a bureaucracy that stood in the way for a whole year? Not that I can complain too much given France's (my country of origin) current immigration policy.
I mean, I see why people are afraid of immigrants. They might steal your jobs and your women. But guess what... The job market is not a pie that you have to split. When new people show up, (especially, college educated or experienced people) the pie grows and everyone benefits.
This has nothing to do with people being fools. There is WAY too much information and decisions to be made for us to actually be rational actors and base all our decisions on all the information available. Our brains just cannot handle such a load. So instead, we use heuristics: Rules of thumb or shortcuts which are easy to apply and most of the time work well. One such heuristic is that we assume that price = value. So if someone tells us something is worth $10 by setting the price at $10 we'll tend to assume it's true until something comes along to change our mind. If something is given away, we tend to assume it does not have a very high value until proven otherwise. And guess what? Most of the time, it works great! When someone gives something away for free, it tends to be a crappy pencil. When there are two brands, one being more expensive, the more expensive one is usually the higher quality one. And that's really helpful, because nowadays, if you had to compare the prices and quality ratings for every alternative whenever you buy a can of beans or a steak, you would never do anything else. So suddenly charging can increase the perceived value, (is there any other kind?) but there is no guarantee that the increase in value will be sufficient to make up for the increased price.
To be fair Mike, if you put a price tag on something, people do perceive it as having additional value. (There is a number of psych studies about that) However, it's not enough to make people buy the thing. You also have to make the thing actually have value.
"So for the government to step in and remotely even have a say in forcing the copyright holder to allow the copy is just as wrong."
Actually, the government is doing no such thing. Copyright is not a natural right such as property of physical objects. In this case, the government is stepping in to restrict the use of our ideas and property in order to grant a monopoly to some people. Right now, the government is preventing me from in the privacy of my own house playing music over my speakers unless I went and paid some amount of money to some person.
"What's the value of an education? Why shouldn't the education material be paid for?"
The point is not that education materials should not be paid for. The point is that if I purchased a book and a photocopying machine, what gives the government the right to come into my house and prevent me from using MY property? If I purchased a CD, what gives the government the right to come into MY house and tell me how I am allowed to use MY CD and MY computer?
What you need to understand is that copyright is an intrusive form of government intervention in our private and economic lives. Limiting its influence is not a new form of government intervention. It is allowing nature to take its course without giving publishers and musicians a handout. Copyright is the ultimate form of protect
I think immunity in this case makes sense. If the government comes to you and tells you to do something and you do it, you are effectively doing it under duress. The people responsible are those that ordered the wiretapping. Not those that own the wires...
I don't see why Blizzard felt they had to go the copyright route. I mean, this could easily be covered by unauthorized access of a computer system. Or facilitating such or whatever... I mean, Blizzard only grants access to its game servers pursuant to you agreeing to certain conditions. (And being someone who played MMOs, I can tell you that those conditions do enhance the value of the product) And honestly, Blizzard has been pretty good about allowing people to modify its products in order to enhance value.
I don't get it Mike... How are we supposed to get more competition? I mean, you are talking about networks of cables which take a lot of money to lay in any one place and then take a lot to maintain. That's a huge barrier to entry. Also, once you have setup access to an area, it's comparatively very cheap to add cables to the different customers in the area. This is a textbook case of natural monopoly. The market is not going to take away the monopoly because it can't... If anything, is the answer really to lay more cables where perfectly good cables already exist? Is that really an efficient allocation of the means of production? The efficient outcome is a single set of cables being setup for the last mile and have competition for the rest of the services. But that means you need somebody to run the last mile who does not run the other services. (Why would I let my competitors access to the monopoly market I spent so much money to build?) And that guy has to be a monopolist who can be trusted to not abuse its monopoly power. You got it, I'm talking about the gov't or some sort of a government sponsored entity. Otherwise, you will never have competition in that market. Or you can pass net neutrality laws, but that's going to be a pain to deal with.
This actually looks like one of those: Don't tell anyone our trusted security system can't be trusted. The whole issue seems to be that TIs are trusted because people think you can't cheat with them. If that is such a huge problem, manufacture a calculator that actually cannot be cheated with instead of manufacturing one that people can. It's easy. Make the storage memory extractable easily and sell to educational institutions a small device that will accept the storage system and reset it to manufacturer preset. I mean, there will always be ways to crack your security system, but that will be a step in the right direction instead of trying to hide the fact that your product is not what you say it is.
Hum... I don't want to rain on your parade Mike, but there is here clearly a case of multi-correlation that is not taken into account.
Countries with smaller GDP per capita often have higher rates of growth (for a variety of macroeconomic reasons which have little to do with IP) and they often have weaker IP laws. (because a lesser portion of their economy uses IP) Smith's number crunching does not actually imply that weaker IP laws lead to greater growth.
Now, I do tend to believe that IP is often a speed bump for innovation, but it is harmful to your credibility when you copy paste that kind of math without a stronger disclaimer. And it's not as though those of us who feel as you do about IP really need to give the industry another stick to beat us with.
So, wait... I seem to remember the rights to Superman's super-strenght were not held by the same people as those who hold the rights to his flight ability. Which one is it? Sounds hilarious to me.
On the post: Shouldn't Intent Be A Part Of Criminal Law?
Re: Not always necessary
Also, the US really needs to reduce its sentences... It's ridiculous and useless. When someone commits a crime, they assume that they will not get caught. They don't calculate the expected value of their jail sentence and the expected value of the benefit from the crime comparing which is higher. Basically, if you present someone with a 20 year sentence, they will act almost the same way as facing a 30, 50, 100 year sentence... It's forever and they REALLY don't want it. However, your wallet feels the difference between keeping a guy fed, housed and guarded for 10, 20 or 100 years...
On the post: That Whole Watch An Ad To Get Content Thing? Patented... And The Patent Holder Has Been Suing
On the post: NY MTA Realizing That Having People Create Apps For You Isn't Such A Bad Thing
On the post: Obama Administration: Shield Law Should Only Protect Journalists If We Don't Care About The Story
On the post: Disney Appreciation Student Group Told They Can't Get Together To Watch Disney Movies
On the post: Will People Pay CNN To Help Them Report The News?
On the post: Massachusetts Says Cops Need Warrant To Stick GPS Device On Your Car
Re: Re:
"Anyway if you have nothing to hide, you obviously have nothing to fear. Though if they have nothing to convict then they need not be suspecting me either."
That's the point. We all have something to hide. If you think you have broken no laws on any one day, you are probably wrong. Picked up some change off the street recently? Did you report it on your taxes? Did you return the found property to the police station so it could be returned to its owner? And the list goes on.
Listen to this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#
You'll see what I mean...
On the post: Massachusetts Says Cops Need Warrant To Stick GPS Device On Your Car
Re:
On the post: Entrepreneur Stuck In Canada Highlights The Need For A Startup Visa Now
I mean, seriously... All I want is be able to work here, pay my taxes and live with my wife in her country of origin. Why was there a bureaucracy that stood in the way for a whole year? Not that I can complain too much given France's (my country of origin) current immigration policy.
I mean, I see why people are afraid of immigrants. They might steal your jobs and your women. But guess what... The job market is not a pie that you have to split. When new people show up, (especially, college educated or experienced people) the pie grows and everyone benefits.
On the post: Dean Singleton: Please Explain How Charging For Something Magically Gives It Value
Re: Well, it worked for kittens
On the post: Dean Singleton: Please Explain How Charging For Something Magically Gives It Value
On the post: Canadian Copyright Group Sending Huge Bills To Schools For Daring To Teach Kids With Photocopies
Re:
On the post: Canadian Copyright Group Sending Huge Bills To Schools For Daring To Teach Kids With Photocopies
Re: My point is
Actually, the government is doing no such thing. Copyright is not a natural right such as property of physical objects. In this case, the government is stepping in to restrict the use of our ideas and property in order to grant a monopoly to some people. Right now, the government is preventing me from in the privacy of my own house playing music over my speakers unless I went and paid some amount of money to some person.
"What's the value of an education? Why shouldn't the education material be paid for?"
The point is not that education materials should not be paid for. The point is that if I purchased a book and a photocopying machine, what gives the government the right to come into my house and prevent me from using MY property? If I purchased a CD, what gives the government the right to come into MY house and tell me how I am allowed to use MY CD and MY computer?
What you need to understand is that copyright is an intrusive form of government intervention in our private and economic lives. Limiting its influence is not a new form of government intervention. It is allowing nature to take its course without giving publishers and musicians a handout. Copyright is the ultimate form of protect
On the post: Senators Look To Remove Telco Retroactive Immunity For Warrantless Wiretaps
On the post: Ownership Or License: The Difference Matters
On the post: Dear WSJ: Will You Pay Google's Bandwidth Bill?
On the post: Texas Instruments Goes Legal On Calculator Hackers: How Dare You Make Our Product Better!
On the post: Chamber Of Commerce Gets Basic Stats Backwards, Calls For Stronger US Patent Protection For No Good Reason
Countries with smaller GDP per capita often have higher rates of growth (for a variety of macroeconomic reasons which have little to do with IP) and they often have weaker IP laws. (because a lesser portion of their economy uses IP) Smith's number crunching does not actually imply that weaker IP laws lead to greater growth.
Now, I do tend to believe that IP is often a speed bump for innovation, but it is harmful to your credibility when you copy paste that kind of math without a stronger disclaimer. And it's not as though those of us who feel as you do about IP really need to give the industry another stick to beat us with.
On the post: Frugalista! Frugalista! Frugalista! Now... Where's My Cease And Desist?
On the post: Heirs Of Comic Book Artist Alert Everyone They Want Their Copyrights Back
Next >>