Actually, the need for standardization applies to all chargers, cables, etc.
We have a Samsung MP3 player that has a non-standard USB cable. So if it goes bad, I would probably have to order from Samsung, pay big bucks, and wait a few days to get. I should be able to go to Walmart and easily get a replacement. If these companies can spend millions to develop "standardized" DRM for their benefit, they could a least give us standard cables.
I wonder if anyone has done a study on the economics of proprietary connectors? I would think that proprietary connectors would prove to be uneconomic despite the apparent belief of companies that this somehow aids their gouging of the consumer.
The proposal simply adds more bureaucratic costs. The "correct" free market solution, raise the tax on gas. Raise it high enough and alternate fuel vehicles will be become a viable option.
------------------------------------------
Our whole way of thinking concerning "green" solutions is backwards. Cutting taxes and providing subsidies is NOT the way to go. We have a huge budget deficient and providing subsidies just increases the opportunities for fraud. Raise the cost of fuel and the tax revenues generated could be used to reduce the deficit and the higher fuel cost would encourage the both the automotive companies (if they still exist) and the consumer to invest in "green" vehicles.
The Washington Post (Oct 7, 2004) reported: "The raunchy radio morning man stunned his staff by saying he has signed a five-year, $500 million deal with Sirius Satellite Radio, portraying the move as a response to "censorship" efforts by the Federal Communications Commission, which does not regulate the content of satellite programs." So they made a bad business deal.
Question, as these companies sink into oblivion, how come we never hear of folks like Howard offering to "refund" a portion of their compensation so that these companies can survive?
I agree with Chad: "I think that ISP based content restrictions are indeed a violation of Net Neutrality and those that filter in this way should be sued. I do not want my Internet connection to evolve into a high priced tiered cable network. We see where this has led us with huge cable bills, a I will vote to see it stopped."
Based on what I have read concerning Net Neutrality, those who do not want the Net regulated hide their true intent behind abstract free market principles when they really mean that they should have an arbitrary and capricious capability to screw the consumer in an opaque manner without recourse.
I read that Times article early this morning. The Times has a habit of releasing industry "press releases" as news. I thought they were getting better.
--------------------------------------------------------
Now for the breaking news, Jim Crammer's video on Netflix and its impact on DVD sales has finally been posted.
The take away from this video, is that the word "piracy" is NOT even mentioned. Crammer says that the consumer's ownership of DVDs is "saturated" and that Netflix offers a cheaper alternative to buying. Also Crammer says that streaming video will be the new business model for distributing content. Enjoy the video.
A short summary, Krebs writes "Organizations that experienced a data breach paid an average of $6.6 million last year to rebuild their brand image and retain customers following public disclosures of the incidents, according to a new study." Of course the sponsor of the study may not be exactly neutral.
Companies are really not Interested in Data Protection
This really gets back to corporate ethics. Corporations really have no interest in protecting customer data since it would crimp their ability to extort revenue from their customers.
Data breaches can be "solved" by companies doing the following:
1. Don't sell/rent/trade customer data
2. Add a pin number to all credit cards
3. Don't send credit card solicitations in the mail.
4. Don't send those "convenience" checks.
5. Don't give credit to those who can't afford it.
6. Don't telemarket
7. Only use Opt-in strategies.
8. Banks want to charge for "protection" services that should be provided free of charge as part of their fiduciary duty to protect your money.
If it crimps business too bad. It's unfortunate that in American culture that corporations seem to be given a free pass to do whatever whimsical action they want to make a buck, but it is the responsibility of the customer to protect themselves. It should not be the sole responsibility of the customer to protect themselves. Corporations need to realize that they are the problem and they can resolve these issues by being responsible.
An unintended effect from so-called "strong" IP laws is the filing of frivolous and dubious lawsuits as an extortion attempt. Remove the "toll-both" by allowing content to quickly fall into the public domain and these lawsuits will vaporize. The ability to copy Romeo and Juliet over and over again with different twists promotes creativity. (Yes, I know Romeo and Juliet is in the public domain.)
1. Where is the due process? You are deemed guilty and disconnected from the internet without so much as a chance to explain what may have happened.
2. Now if you are not guilty, who do you call? What sort of monetary compensation should you get for the lost service?.
ISP's such as Comcast should not be disconnecting people, but if this somehow becomes the "norm", we need the above questions answered. All we here is their laments about their lost revenue, but we hear nothing about our rights.
"I don't understand why there isn't a consumer protection law against this practice."
This is America the land of, for, and for the benefit of the corporation. The consumer is simply a revenue unit who's sole purpose in life is to provide corporations with revenue. Of course corporations have NO obligation to provide you with anything of value and can take anything they "loan" you back on a whim.
Where does company A get the right to demand that company B filter the content stream that person C is passing? I would say that when a customer subscribes to a service, it is the responsibility of the service provider to deliver those packets. They do not have a right to inspect those packets and arbitrarily turn off the data stream just because someone says so. How would the ISP feel if the customer only paid if they felt like it. This is ludicrous, essentially the consumer is left with no rights.
If we generalize this, I could walk up to some unknown person who just happens to be standing there and demand under the penalty of death that they break into a house on the simple belief that the house might contain something of mine. This would not appear to be a civil society that is based on the rule of law. Seems that we are falling into corporatism.
Not only are they attempting to deprive you of your paid for service, AT&T and Comcast are are attempting to hide it ==> "though neither will admit to it publicly for fear of public backlash." I guess the corporate leaders of AT&T and Comcast have not learned anything about ethics from the collapse of our financial system. If companies are not willing to be honest and transparent, the companies deserve to be regulated.
So wrong =>"There is nothing wrong with hiding your number, a few reasons"
Where is your respect for the consumer and honest business practices? If a company is unwilling to disclose something then it implies that they are not really being honest. Yet if we buy, the telemarketers want ALL our information to make sure they get paid. Those who "invade" your privacy must disclose who they are. Telemarketers don NOT have a right to trespass on you.
Onetime, I guess I was feeling talkative, I asked the telemarketer if I had a problem with their product could I call him/her to get it "fixed". They responded that I would have to call "customer service", I responded that YOU (hypothetical)sold me the product so you should take care of it. Of course the conversation went nowhere. The point being, once you give them your money, you are screwed.
We as consumers should never accept this method of "fighting" back. "Just change your phone number. Never give it out. Get a phony number."
The "inconvenience" of calling belongs to whoever is calling you up. The recipient of a call should not have to go through all sorts of evasive actions to protect themselves.
Prior to the November election we received an incredible number of junk calls. All of them had their caller ID blanked.
All calls made to a recipient are an "invasion" of their privacy. Of course some calls are wanted (friends) and others not wanted (telemarketers). While we may not want regulation, I think that it is totally appropriate that every caller be legally obligated to disclose who they are.
It is about time that Congress stops accepting the junk callers argument that they need to "hide" who they are to "facilitate business". Our credit system today is in shambles because of opaque business practices designed to "facilitate business". If you have something to "hide" then it would appear obvious that you are doing it for a nefarious reason.
Now in terms of music piracy, there have been ideas floated that every CD sold should contain a "tax". Well lets apply it to the telemarketers, every call they make should be "taxed" and the collected fees used to subsidize our phone bills. So what if it "hurts" their business, their calls "hurts" us. After all the telemarketers are wasting our time and using our resources every time they call us up. We, as consumers, have rights too.
Here is a nifty article on Wikipedia on the Copyright Term Extension Act. This article also has a nifty graph showing how copyright has become more onerous.
Here is what the Wikipedia article states "This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterwards (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that or if the copyright gets extended again.". By using a legislative "trick" that delays the content from entering the public domain, the content industry has effectively "stolen" the content from the public.
Let's reverse the situation. If the copyright law was changed so that material would enter the public domain after only five years, you would hear the content producers howl about how their so-called property was being stolen!!
Laws that aggrandize so-called intellectual property rights by stealing from the public domain are good? Isn't the pro-IP crowd an"ideologically driven interest groups"?
But if you push for a law that would protect the public's right fairly use so-called intellectual property or to roll-back the law to a prior more reasonable version, you are a criminal?
Since when it is it considered criminal to advocate your position in a democracy? Orwell's 1984 has come true.
It seems that the discussion is overlooking the issue that court proceedings in most cases are PUBLIC. (see note below) Consequently the RIAA is attempting to squelch free speech.
Though focusing on REMIX speaks of the absurdity of the RIAA position it leaves us "stuck" with looking at this from a copyright issue, that clearly does not apply. We need to take a more aggressive stance by saying that the RIAA is attempting to reduce our rights to participate (by listening) in an open court proceeding.
In the WIRED article In Internet First, RIAA File Sharing Hearing to Be Webcast David Kravets wrote: "The ruling is groundbreaking. Federal trial courts rarely, if ever, permit still pictures or live feeds from their courtrooms, though appeals courts are more open. Most states allow some type of photography, and vest the decision exclusively with the judge presiding over the case." So there is some "maneuvering room" for the RIAA. Nevertheless, here we have an organization that wants ethical behavior on the consumers part demanding that it has a right to squelch freedom of speech, a fundamental right that we are entitled too. Very hypocritical.
Sprint deserves to go out of business. Nevertheless this raises a serious issue. What is a PRIVATE company doing stockpiling "emergency" communications equipment?
This is a management issue that is the responsibly of local/state governments. When has Sprint ever been altruistic? I never got my $15 back, as a result of a class action lawsuit, for their "improper" billing practices.
On the post: About Damn Time: Phone Makers To Standardize Chargers
About Fricking Time
We have a Samsung MP3 player that has a non-standard USB cable. So if it goes bad, I would probably have to order from Samsung, pay big bucks, and wait a few days to get. I should be able to go to Walmart and easily get a replacement. If these companies can spend millions to develop "standardized" DRM for their benefit, they could a least give us standard cables.
I wonder if anyone has done a study on the economics of proprietary connectors? I would think that proprietary connectors would prove to be uneconomic despite the apparent belief of companies that this somehow aids their gouging of the consumer.
On the post: Massachusetts Wants GPS Driving Tax, Too
Raise the At the Pump Gas Tax
------------------------------------------
Our whole way of thinking concerning "green" solutions is backwards. Cutting taxes and providing subsidies is NOT the way to go. We have a huge budget deficient and providing subsidies just increases the opportunities for fraud. Raise the cost of fuel and the tax revenues generated could be used to reduce the deficit and the higher fuel cost would encourage the both the automotive companies (if they still exist) and the consumer to invest in "green" vehicles.
On the post: Was Sirius' Bankruptcy Inevitable?
Sirius' Bankruptcy Their Own Fault?
Question, as these companies sink into oblivion, how come we never hear of folks like Howard offering to "refund" a portion of their compensation so that these companies can survive?
On the post: No, ESPN Still Isn't Breaking Imagined 'Reverse Net Neutrality' Concept
The US Tax Code Revisted
I agree with Chad: "I think that ISP based content restrictions are indeed a violation of Net Neutrality and those that filter in this way should be sued. I do not want my Internet connection to evolve into a high priced tiered cable network. We see where this has led us with huge cable bills, a I will vote to see it stopped."
Based on what I have read concerning Net Neutrality, those who do not want the Net regulated hide their true intent behind abstract free market principles when they really mean that they should have an arbitrary and capricious capability to screw the consumer in an opaque manner without recourse.
On the post: NY Times Buys Bogus Movie Industry Complaints About Piracy
Netflix and DVD Sales
--------------------------------------------------------
Now for the breaking news, Jim Crammer's video on Netflix and its impact on DVD sales has finally been posted.
NFLX: The Reel Deal?
The take away from this video, is that the word "piracy" is NOT even mentioned. Crammer says that the consumer's ownership of DVDs is "saturated" and that Netflix offers a cheaper alternative to buying. Also Crammer says that streaming video will be the new business model for distributing content. Enjoy the video.
On the post: What Should Be The Legal Recourse In Cases Of Privacy Policy Breaches?
Data Breaches More Costly Than Ever
A short summary, Krebs writes "Organizations that experienced a data breach paid an average of $6.6 million last year to rebuild their brand image and retain customers following public disclosures of the incidents, according to a new study." Of course the sponsor of the study may not be exactly neutral.
On the post: What Should Be The Legal Recourse In Cases Of Privacy Policy Breaches?
Companies are really not Interested in Data Protection
Data breaches can be "solved" by companies doing the following:
1. Don't sell/rent/trade customer data
2. Add a pin number to all credit cards
3. Don't send credit card solicitations in the mail.
4. Don't send those "convenience" checks.
5. Don't give credit to those who can't afford it.
6. Don't telemarket
7. Only use Opt-in strategies.
8. Banks want to charge for "protection" services that should be provided free of charge as part of their fiduciary duty to protect your money.
If it crimps business too bad. It's unfortunate that in American culture that corporations seem to be given a free pass to do whatever whimsical action they want to make a buck, but it is the responsibility of the customer to protect themselves. It should not be the sole responsibility of the customer to protect themselves. Corporations need to realize that they are the problem and they can resolve these issues by being responsible.
On the post: Multiple People Demanding Credit For Hannah Montana
Collateral Damage from "strong" copyright
On the post: Comcast Screws Up And Targets Innocent Customer In P2P Dragnet
SWAT Mistaken Use of Deadly Force
The Washington Post reports: What a SWAT team did to Cheye Calvo's family may seem extreme. But decades into America's war on drugs, it's business as usual.
On the post: Comcast Screws Up And Targets Innocent Customer In P2P Dragnet
Due Process Anyone?
1. Where is the due process? You are deemed guilty and disconnected from the internet without so much as a chance to explain what may have happened.
2. Now if you are not guilty, who do you call? What sort of monetary compensation should you get for the lost service?.
ISP's such as Comcast should not be disconnecting people, but if this somehow becomes the "norm", we need the above questions answered. All we here is their laments about their lost revenue, but we hear nothing about our rights.
On the post: Gears Of War DRM Makes It Unplayable As Of Yesterday
What does the Company Say???
I assume by now that this story has penetrated the company's isolation bunker so they they may be aware of it.
On the post: Gears Of War DRM Makes It Unplayable As Of Yesterday
Re:
This is America the land of, for, and for the benefit of the corporation. The consumer is simply a revenue unit who's sole purpose in life is to provide corporations with revenue. Of course corporations have NO obligation to provide you with anything of value and can take anything they "loan" you back on a whim.
On the post: AT&T And Comcast Willing To Cut Off File Sharers
What is the Source of this Right to Filter?
If we generalize this, I could walk up to some unknown person who just happens to be standing there and demand under the penalty of death that they break into a house on the simple belief that the house might contain something of mine. This would not appear to be a civil society that is based on the rule of law. Seems that we are falling into corporatism.
Not only are they attempting to deprive you of your paid for service, AT&T and Comcast are are attempting to hide it ==> "though neither will admit to it publicly for fear of public backlash." I guess the corporate leaders of AT&T and Comcast have not learned anything about ethics from the collapse of our financial system. If companies are not willing to be honest and transparent, the companies deserve to be regulated.
On the post: Canadians Getting More Telemarketing Calls After Putting Names On Do Not Call List
It is Wrong Not to Disclose
Where is your respect for the consumer and honest business practices? If a company is unwilling to disclose something then it implies that they are not really being honest. Yet if we buy, the telemarketers want ALL our information to make sure they get paid. Those who "invade" your privacy must disclose who they are. Telemarketers don NOT have a right to trespass on you.
Onetime, I guess I was feeling talkative, I asked the telemarketer if I had a problem with their product could I call him/her to get it "fixed". They responded that I would have to call "customer service", I responded that YOU (hypothetical)sold me the product so you should take care of it. Of course the conversation went nowhere. The point being, once you give them your money, you are screwed.
On the post: Canadians Getting More Telemarketing Calls After Putting Names On Do Not Call List
Not the Consumer's responsiblity
"Just change your phone number. Never give it out. Get a phony number."
The "inconvenience" of calling belongs to whoever is calling you up. The recipient of a call should not have to go through all sorts of evasive actions to protect themselves.
On the post: Canadians Getting More Telemarketing Calls After Putting Names On Do Not Call List
Need to go Further
All calls made to a recipient are an "invasion" of their privacy. Of course some calls are wanted (friends) and others not wanted (telemarketers). While we may not want regulation, I think that it is totally appropriate that every caller be legally obligated to disclose who they are.
It is about time that Congress stops accepting the junk callers argument that they need to "hide" who they are to "facilitate business". Our credit system today is in shambles because of opaque business practices designed to "facilitate business". If you have something to "hide" then it would appear obvious that you are doing it for a nefarious reason.
Now in terms of music piracy, there have been ideas floated that every CD sold should contain a "tax". Well lets apply it to the telemarketers, every call they make should be "taxed" and the collected fees used to subsidize our phone bills. So what if it "hurts" their business, their calls "hurts" us. After all the telemarketers are wasting our time and using our resources every time they call us up. We, as consumers, have rights too.
On the post: US's Global IP Cops Bemoan Anti-IP Activists For Making Their Lives More Difficult
Re: Re: Re: Relativistic Laws
Here is what the Wikipedia article states "This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterwards (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that or if the copyright gets extended again.". By using a legislative "trick" that delays the content from entering the public domain, the content industry has effectively "stolen" the content from the public.
Let's reverse the situation. If the copyright law was changed so that material would enter the public domain after only five years, you would hear the content producers howl about how their so-called property was being stolen!!
On the post: US's Global IP Cops Bemoan Anti-IP Activists For Making Their Lives More Difficult
Relativistic Laws
But if you push for a law that would protect the public's right fairly use so-called intellectual property or to roll-back the law to a prior more reasonable version, you are a criminal?
Since when it is it considered criminal to advocate your position in a democracy? Orwell's 1984 has come true.
On the post: RIAA Explanation For Not Wanting Court Broadcast: Those Geeks Might Remix It
Public Entitled to the Court Proceedings
Though focusing on REMIX speaks of the absurdity of the RIAA position it leaves us "stuck" with looking at this from a copyright issue, that clearly does not apply. We need to take a more aggressive stance by saying that the RIAA is attempting to reduce our rights to participate (by listening) in an open court proceeding.
In the WIRED article In Internet First, RIAA File Sharing Hearing to Be Webcast David Kravets wrote: "The ruling is groundbreaking. Federal trial courts rarely, if ever, permit still pictures or live feeds from their courtrooms, though appeals courts are more open. Most states allow some type of photography, and vest the decision exclusively with the judge presiding over the case." So there is some "maneuvering room" for the RIAA. Nevertheless, here we have an organization that wants ethical behavior on the consumers part demanding that it has a right to squelch freedom of speech, a fundamental right that we are entitled too. Very hypocritical.
On the post: Sprint Wants Its Government Handout, Too
Sprint Bad
This is a management issue that is the responsibly of local/state governments. When has Sprint ever been altruistic? I never got my $15 back, as a result of a class action lawsuit, for their "improper" billing practices.
Next >>