The appropriate strategy, would be to delete the data.
It amazes me that many companies are constantly scream infringement when it comes to their "private" data being used by someone else. However, they don't seem to have a problem with claiming that a customers private data is in fact theirs!
In an era where identify theft is hyped as a major issue, the logical conclusion is that all customer data must be deleted. First, it should not be considered a company asset. Second, if the data is not deleted; the possibility exists that an unethical company can buy the private data and then re-sell it, and then re-sell it again. So if we want to preclude the misuse of private data, when a company goes out of business they should not be considered as having an interest in that data any longer and it should be deleted.
If we want an unregulated internet, how about some of the companies taking responsibility for what is put out for public review. Let's face it, if companies put forth misleading information to get you in the door, they probably aren't reputable anyway.
If companies are not willing to exhibit some degree of self-control, I would have no aversion to the "evil" regulators stepping in and fining companies that pursue/allow misleading advertising.
1. The patent is held by the State in trust for its citizens.
2. The courts of the State (at issue) don't recognize the validity of the patent when issued by a foreign state. Also the State's patent office must reject any such patent application.
I just ran across a case (pun) where linking out by the newspapers is a must. Fortunately for me, the Washington Post provided a link to the Supreme Court's decision.
My interest in this is that the strip searching of your packets on the internet by ISPs on the pretense of trying to find contraband should also be considered illegal based on this case.
The statement "If you don't know if you have the rights, don't post it, don't share it, don't distribute it." Is absurd on its face.
True, if you have a recently issued music CD one can reasonably assume that it is all copyrighted-up. But things really aren't all that clear. Think about it, how can any one individual know the full scope of contracts that exist for a particular piece of content. You simply can't look this up through a simple Internet search to find out.
Not only that but the content producers are claiming rights that they don't even own. So if someone is claiming a copyright that they don't even own, you simply accept their FUD as truth? For example, Mike just wrote about Shakespeare and copyright. Oxford Press has a copyright notice on King Lear. To the casual reader, the implication is clear, King Lear is copyrighted. What Shakespeare wrote is not subject to copyright, though what Oxford Press added is. Consumers should not have make these distinctions nor should they have to prove that they have a legitimate right. Due process requires that the copyright holder demonstrate that they actually have an ownership interest.
The responsibility for a protecting content belongs to the copyright holder. The consumer should not feel constrained in the use of content based on undocumented "proof". In the absence of any valid proof, the consumer should be free to use content as they wish.
Filtering. Those opposed to network neutrality assert that the ISP have a "right" to manage data flows. We already have had minor instances were ISPs have "blocked" the free flow of content. It doesn't take much imagination that with today's technology that ISP will develop methods to "disable" competitive content streams. After all we can't have anarchy out there.
Actually, this points to another form of copyright abuse. What is and what is not protected by copyright is not clearly defined. That leaves the reader with the impression that the work is still "protected" by copyright when in fact it isn't.
Also to follow-up on the Mike's post concerning the requirement that Universities protect the RIAA and the MPAA. How would the University react if Oxford Press issues a bogus take-down notice for works that are in the public domain? Just because someone asserts copyright ownership doesn't mean that they actually have a legitimate ownership interest. It unfortunate, that we seem to have changed the law so that someone can claim "ownership" without proof and point the finger of blame, but the pointee must somehow prove that the the pointer does not actually possess the "ownership".
It is unfortunate in this country that the concept of privacy is a twisted farce. Privacy, belongs to the recipient of advertising not the advertiser.
It amazes me that in the name of fostering "business" the public is accosted with telemarketers, junk text messages, and junk mail. Too few people point out that this advertising assault costs the public money, time, and deprives them of full use of their computers, phones, etc. Companies should not be entitled to usurp property that does not belong to them for their use. Usurping property in this manner would be akin to theft. If people want to receive advertising they can opt-in, otherwise companies should simply be prohibited from actively contacting the public.
Another major issue concerning the assault on privacy is the source of this so-called right. Mike notes Simon & Schuster "had no idea that the "agreement" may be faulty". As copyright/patent law have become more onerous; we are finding more and more accusations of supposed "illegal" activity based on questionable grounds. We even have laws now that require third parties (Universities) to "protect" the supposed rights of special interests such as the RIAA and MPPA. We are well on the road to corporatism. Long live the corporation!
For the sake of argument, lets assume this is about stopping theft.
First, why should I be respect a law that takes away some of my rights and gives additional rights to someone else? The law should provide a level playing field that protects everyone.
Second, how far can a law go in "protecting" someone's property? Are companies allowed to have jack booted thugs invade your home at their will to "investigate" if you may be using a product in a manner inconsistent with how the company says is an acceptable use. How about allowing store owners to strip search each customer as they leave the store.
Third, can you impose a law that requires a third person, who is a "bystander" to forcefully intervene to protect Person A from Person B? Or to put it this way; hypothetically, you are on your way to work and I am going to a movie. I stop you and say that according to this new law I require that you to stand here and protect my car while I am in the movie. Well if you don't go to work, you don't get paid, you may even get fired. So are you willing to sacrifice your time and money to protect Person A? I don't think so.
Fourth, we also need to ask the question as to whether Person A even has a legitimate ownership interest to the property in question. It is quite possible that I could be asking you in my hypothetical example to protect a stolen car. Third disinterested parties are not in a position to determine who is or who is not stealing. So how can we demand that a disinterest third party protect the interest of Person A over Person B?
It is the responsibility of Person A to protect their own property. If he/she can't too bad.
First, why should third parties be required, by law, to protect a company's business model. It's the company's responsibility to implement and protect a workable business model.
Second, implementing this private police force activity will cost the university money. Will the MPAA and the RIAA be providing their fair share of the expense of supporting this police force? If not, isn't the RIAA and the MPAA imposing a financial burden on the students who pay the tuition. So even if a student does not infringe, he or she is forced to pay to protect a company's revenue stream.
Third, LIABILITY. It will happen, some student gets wrongly accused, convicted, and fined without due process and suffers some sort of irreparable harm. The student sues the University and the University looses big time. Meanwhile the executives at the RIAA and the MPAA watch from the sidelines while enjoying their luxury summer palaces saying that this miscarriage of justice is not their responsibility or fault.
Billboard.biz wrote: "The Japanese parliament has passed an amendment to the existing Copyright Law that extends further protections to copyright holders and, for the first time, makes it illegal for private users to download copyrighted material that has been uploaded without the rights holders' permission."
While one has a right to protect their property, they do not have the right of protecting it by taking (stealing) the rights of others.
Additionally; once again, we have a "new" property right that the copyright owner did not previously possess. This is inappropriately characterized as "protecting" the copyright owner. The reality is that what was legal is now being made illegal. Really this is an aggrandizement of their so-called property right, not protect it.
Mike write: "If any jobs are being lost, it's because you failed to manage your business properly, recognize the new market that technology has created, and learn to embrace it in a profitable manner."
The New York Times has once again published a disingenuous puff article lamenting the inability of artists to get paid for their work. The Times writes:"“There’s a lot of concern that newspapers and all of print is becoming a bit of an endangered species,” said Brian Stauffer, an illustrator based in Miami whose work has appeared in publications including Rolling Stone, Esquire and Entertainment Weekly, and who also rejected Google’s offer. “When a company like Google comes out very publicly and expects that the market would just give them free artwork, it sets a very dangerous precedent.”"
Here we have Google soliciting for "free" content, but the reaction of the Times is that this is a travesty since the artists won't get paid!!!!
The obvious implication that the Times is trying to project is that Google is costing these artists paid jobs. A fact conveniently overlooked by the Times is that if an artist does not want a job for "free"; they don't have to work. And if they want to work for "free" they can. But it isn't costing these artists jobs.
Many people have pointed out that we have many more options regarding entertainment. As you point out, listening to music may be replaced by playing a video game. Another factor I think is market saturation, you can only listen/play so much. After a while, you don't know where to store all that stuff and you may not even be able to find it, even if you want to hear/watch it.
Last night we happened to have cruised through Best Buy's DVD bargain bin. There were several DVDs that we would have liked to buy, at really reasonable prices, but we didn't. Were numbed out.
Anonymous Coward asked "The TaxTables started out only being $49 a year - what changed?!!"
I have never used Quick Books, but at one time, when your subscription lapsed to the TaxTables, you used to be able to manually update them. It is my understanding (based on various posts) that manually updating these files was DISABLED as a means of forcing you to buy a subscription. Intuit is NOT an innovative consumer friendly company.
Whether Intuit once again allows you to manually update the TaxTables is unknown to me.
I can only hope that a LINUX competitor will emerge. So far, I exported some files (as a test) from Quicken to GnuCash (LINUX) and it seems to work. But it seems to require transferring one data file at a time, which will make it a very manual and time consuming project.
Quicken will never develop a LINUX version, they are a very proprietary company. (I actually think that the original programmers where somewhat "open" as there were options that let you export/import data. This ability seems to have been somewhat, but not completely, disabled.)
They also pursue very disingenuous business strategies. For example, they advertise that you can use their product free for XX days and if you don't like it, you can return it. Well it turns out that if you "upgrade" to the new version and don't like it, you can NOT, I repeat, you can NOT go back to the old version. So unless you make a back-up before you "upgrade" you are screwed.
I have been a long time user of Quicken. That product does not demonstrate innovation. Quicken is an example of a marketing department that has run amok.
The product was innovative when first introduced and had a few good years as a reputable company. Since it was acquired by Intuit, it has been the same stagnant product for many years. Unfortunately, real competitors have not stepped in. I often have wondered why? (TruboTax is just as bad with consistent reminders to buy/upgrade.)
Quicken has gone beyond rational marketing. They accost the public with ceaseless marketing. There are even adds in Quicken for buying Quicken which I consider very offensive. In fact, I was once greeted with a Quicken advertisement when I opened the program!
Quicken was a product that was innovative when first introduced. The original programmers, I would say developed a good product. As such, that is why I still use it. However, since being acquired by Intuit any real development has ceased and it is simply be milked by Intuit as a cash cow.
In conclusion, this is not a case of one company being more innovative than another, but which company is most inept at marketing.
Students, it seems to me, are an untapped resource. I have no idea as to the students assignment, but if it is a typical assignment it is probably a re-hash of a previously solved programming issue. Assignments, to be especially useful should tackle unsolved issues. I would like to suggest that Computer Departments, in developing assignments make them relevant to promoting open software, such as enhancing LINUX.
The role of universities should be fostering our educational knowledge, not accumulating copyright/patent privileges. Contributing to the development of open source software promotes both learning and society's knowledge base.
Whether your search results include porn or not begs what is a fundamental shortcoming with the search engines. To a degree they are not really designed to actually give you what you want but to give you something that others think that you want.
I don't want to receive porn, but neither do I want to receive irrelevant sales pitches that interferes with "real" research, such as product reviews. When I am looking up product specifications, I don't want the sales pitch. For example, I was looking for a watch battery where the vendor implied that they had the battery, but when you actually went there, they neither had the battery specs nor did not have the battery. In another case, I mistyped at URL and got a fake web page full of adds, instead of the "Sorry but you are an idiot for mistyping ...".
While advertising pays for our ability to surf the net, the search engines need to give us what we are asking for, not what is being crammed down our throats.
On the post: What Happens To All That Personal Data Clear Holds? It's Unclear
Delete
It amazes me that many companies are constantly scream infringement when it comes to their "private" data being used by someone else. However, they don't seem to have a problem with claiming that a customers private data is in fact theirs!
In an era where identify theft is hyped as a major issue, the logical conclusion is that all customer data must be deleted. First, it should not be considered a company asset. Second, if the data is not deleted; the possibility exists that an unethical company can buy the private data and then re-sell it, and then re-sell it again. So if we want to preclude the misuse of private data, when a company goes out of business they should not be considered as having an interest in that data any longer and it should be deleted.
On the post: Tricking People With Fake Content Isn't Good Advertising
How about Responsibility?
If companies are not willing to exhibit some degree of self-control, I would have no aversion to the "evil" regulators stepping in and fining companies that pursue/allow misleading advertising.
On the post: South Africa Considers Potentially Requiring Patents On Publicly Funded Research
Alternaitves
2. The courts of the State (at issue) don't recognize the validity of the patent when issued by a foreign state. Also the State's patent office must reject any such patent application.
On the post: Why Do Newspapers So Rarely Link Out?
Court Decisions for One
Supreme Court Rules School's Strip Search of Girl Was Illegal.
My interest in this is that the strip searching of your packets on the internet by ISPs on the pretense of trying to find contraband should also be considered illegal based on this case.
On the post: German Court Says Rapidshare Must Get Magical Powers To Know Which Songs Infringe And Which Do Not
Absurd Statement
True, if you have a recently issued music CD one can reasonably assume that it is all copyrighted-up. But things really aren't all that clear. Think about it, how can any one individual know the full scope of contracts that exist for a particular piece of content. You simply can't look this up through a simple Internet search to find out.
Not only that but the content producers are claiming rights that they don't even own. So if someone is claiming a copyright that they don't even own, you simply accept their FUD as truth? For example, Mike just wrote about Shakespeare and copyright. Oxford Press has a copyright notice on King Lear. To the casual reader, the implication is clear, King Lear is copyrighted. What Shakespeare wrote is not subject to copyright, though what Oxford Press added is. Consumers should not have make these distinctions nor should they have to prove that they have a legitimate right. Due process requires that the copyright holder demonstrate that they actually have an ownership interest.
The responsibility for a protecting content belongs to the copyright holder. The consumer should not feel constrained in the use of content based on undocumented "proof". In the absence of any valid proof, the consumer should be free to use content as they wish.
On the post: Comcast And Time Warner Team Up To Control What TV You Watch Online
Re: Re: *yawn*
On the post: Would King Lear Ever Have Been Written If Copyright Law Existed?
But, But, its still copyrighted!!!
http://www.amazon.com/King-Lear-Oxford-School-Shakespeare/dp/019832054X/ref=sr_1_2? ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245777747&sr=1-2#reader
Actually, this points to another form of copyright abuse. What is and what is not protected by copyright is not clearly defined. That leaves the reader with the impression that the work is still "protected" by copyright when in fact it isn't.
Also to follow-up on the Mike's post concerning the requirement that Universities protect the RIAA and the MPAA. How would the University react if Oxford Press issues a bogus take-down notice for works that are in the public domain? Just because someone asserts copyright ownership doesn't mean that they actually have a legitimate ownership interest. It unfortunate, that we seem to have changed the law so that someone can claim "ownership" without proof and point the finger of blame, but the pointee must somehow prove that the the pointer does not actually possess the "ownership".
On the post: Court Says Anti-Telemarketing Law Covers Unsolicited Text Messaging
Advertising and Privacy
It amazes me that in the name of fostering "business" the public is accosted with telemarketers, junk text messages, and junk mail. Too few people point out that this advertising assault costs the public money, time, and deprives them of full use of their computers, phones, etc. Companies should not be entitled to usurp property that does not belong to them for their use. Usurping property in this manner would be akin to theft. If people want to receive advertising they can opt-in, otherwise companies should simply be prohibited from actively contacting the public.
Another major issue concerning the assault on privacy is the source of this so-called right. Mike notes Simon & Schuster "had no idea that the "agreement" may be faulty". As copyright/patent law have become more onerous; we are finding more and more accusations of supposed "illegal" activity based on questionable grounds. We even have laws now that require third parties (Universities) to "protect" the supposed rights of special interests such as the RIAA and MPPA. We are well on the road to corporatism. Long live the corporation!
On the post: Universities Struggling To Deal With Law Requiring Them To Fight File Sharing
Re: Re: So Wrong
First, why should I be respect a law that takes away some of my rights and gives additional rights to someone else? The law should provide a level playing field that protects everyone.
Second, how far can a law go in "protecting" someone's property? Are companies allowed to have jack booted thugs invade your home at their will to "investigate" if you may be using a product in a manner inconsistent with how the company says is an acceptable use. How about allowing store owners to strip search each customer as they leave the store.
Third, can you impose a law that requires a third person, who is a "bystander" to forcefully intervene to protect Person A from Person B? Or to put it this way; hypothetically, you are on your way to work and I am going to a movie. I stop you and say that according to this new law I require that you to stand here and protect my car while I am in the movie. Well if you don't go to work, you don't get paid, you may even get fired. So are you willing to sacrifice your time and money to protect Person A? I don't think so.
Fourth, we also need to ask the question as to whether Person A even has a legitimate ownership interest to the property in question. It is quite possible that I could be asking you in my hypothetical example to protect a stolen car. Third disinterested parties are not in a position to determine who is or who is not stealing. So how can we demand that a disinterest third party protect the interest of Person A over Person B?
It is the responsibility of Person A to protect their own property. If he/she can't too bad.
On the post: Universities Struggling To Deal With Law Requiring Them To Fight File Sharing
So Wrong
First, why should third parties be required, by law, to protect a company's business model. It's the company's responsibility to implement and protect a workable business model.
Second, implementing this private police force activity will cost the university money. Will the MPAA and the RIAA be providing their fair share of the expense of supporting this police force? If not, isn't the RIAA and the MPAA imposing a financial burden on the students who pay the tuition. So even if a student does not infringe, he or she is forced to pay to protect a company's revenue stream.
Third, LIABILITY. It will happen, some student gets wrongly accused, convicted, and fined without due process and suffers some sort of irreparable harm. The student sues the University and the University looses big time. Meanwhile the executives at the RIAA and the MPAA watch from the sidelines while enjoying their luxury summer palaces saying that this miscarriage of justice is not their responsibility or fault.
On the post: Japan Makes Private Copying Illegal
Theft of the Public Domain
While one has a right to protect their property, they do not have the right of protecting it by taking (stealing) the rights of others.
Additionally; once again, we have a "new" property right that the copyright owner did not previously possess. This is inappropriately characterized as "protecting" the copyright owner. The reality is that what was legal is now being made illegal. Really this is an aggrandizement of their so-called property right, not protect it.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Still Insisting That Gov't Protectionism Is The Only Way To Compete
New York Times - Doesn't Get It Once Again
The New York Times has once again published a disingenuous puff article lamenting the inability of artists to get paid for their work. The Times writes:"“There’s a lot of concern that newspapers and all of print is becoming a bit of an endangered species,” said Brian Stauffer, an illustrator based in Miami whose work has appeared in publications including Rolling Stone, Esquire and Entertainment Weekly, and who also rejected Google’s offer. “When a company like Google comes out very publicly and expects that the market would just give them free artwork, it sets a very dangerous precedent.”"
Here we have Google soliciting for "free" content, but the reaction of the Times is that this is a travesty since the artists won't get paid!!!!
The obvious implication that the Times is trying to project is that Google is costing these artists paid jobs. A fact conveniently overlooked by the Times is that if an artist does not want a job for "free"; they don't have to work. And if they want to work for "free" they can. But it isn't costing these artists jobs.
On the post: The Real Culprit For The Decline In Music Sales? Video Games
Market Saturation
Last night we happened to have cruised through Best Buy's DVD bargain bin. There were several DVDs that we would have liked to buy, at really reasonable prices, but we didn't. Were numbed out.
On the post: The End Of Microsoft Money: Big Company Doesn't Always Win
Quick Books
I have never used Quick Books, but at one time, when your subscription lapsed to the TaxTables, you used to be able to manually update them. It is my understanding (based on various posts) that manually updating these files was DISABLED as a means of forcing you to buy a subscription. Intuit is NOT an innovative consumer friendly company.
Whether Intuit once again allows you to manually update the TaxTables is unknown to me.
On the post: The End Of Microsoft Money: Big Company Doesn't Always Win
Re: No Linux Version = Begining of the End?
On the post: The End Of Microsoft Money: Big Company Doesn't Always Win
Re: Marketing
They also pursue very disingenuous business strategies. For example, they advertise that you can use their product free for XX days and if you don't like it, you can return it. Well it turns out that if you "upgrade" to the new version and don't like it, you can NOT, I repeat, you can NOT go back to the old version. So unless you make a back-up before you "upgrade" you are screwed.
On the post: The End Of Microsoft Money: Big Company Doesn't Always Win
Intuit = Crap
The product was innovative when first introduced and had a few good years as a reputable company. Since it was acquired by Intuit, it has been the same stagnant product for many years. Unfortunately, real competitors have not stepped in. I often have wondered why? (TruboTax is just as bad with consistent reminders to buy/upgrade.)
Quicken has gone beyond rational marketing. They accost the public with ceaseless marketing. There are even adds in Quicken for buying Quicken which I consider very offensive. In fact, I was once greeted with a Quicken advertisement when I opened the program!
Quicken was a product that was innovative when first introduced. The original programmers, I would say developed a good product. As such, that is why I still use it. However, since being acquired by Intuit any real development has ceased and it is simply be milked by Intuit as a cash cow.
In conclusion, this is not a case of one company being more innovative than another, but which company is most inept at marketing.
On the post: Student Wins Against Professor's Threats Over Posting Code Online
Open Source - Untapped Potential
The role of universities should be fostering our educational knowledge, not accumulating copyright/patent privileges. Contributing to the development of open source software promotes both learning and society's knowledge base.
On the post: That's One Way To Grab Search Traffic
Re: Re: A Different Take
On the post: That's One Way To Grab Search Traffic
A Different Take
I don't want to receive porn, but neither do I want to receive irrelevant sales pitches that interferes with "real" research, such as product reviews. When I am looking up product specifications, I don't want the sales pitch. For example, I was looking for a watch battery where the vendor implied that they had the battery, but when you actually went there, they neither had the battery specs nor did not have the battery. In another case, I mistyped at URL and got a fake web page full of adds, instead of the "Sorry but you are an idiot for mistyping ...".
While advertising pays for our ability to surf the net, the search engines need to give us what we are asking for, not what is being crammed down our throats.
Next >>