>>I don't know if I know any prior art, but it does seem kinda obvious.
Prior art is so narrowly defined by the patent system that it is practically meaningless. Examiners don't have time to look for prior art, and most of them are not familiar enough with the field that they are reviewing to recognize prior art if it existed.
Obviousness doesn't really have a working definition. And again, the examiners are not generally familiar enough with the fields they are reviewing to recognize when something is obvious.
I don't think the typical TD'er is against the NYT making money off its own content. A lot of us make at least some money off of our own content in one way or another. TD itself makes money off of its content, and no one objects at all. Most of us want musicians, authors, actors, directors, and other artists to get paid for their work.
I dont' think most of us are even angry with the NYT. We are, I think, amused. It is kind of like seeing a banana peel lying on the sidewalk. We know someone is going to slip on it eventually. If we could pick it up we would, but we can't reach it. We can yell and holler to people to be careful, but no one is listening. Since we are pretty sure someone is going to slip on it eventually, all we can do is sit back and watch the show. Maybe we shouldn't be enjoying watch someone fall, but we know that the people who will be tripped up are likely to be arrogant stuffed shirts who are ignoring the world around them.
The unifying theme to the TD perspective is that the Internet and digital media have changed market for many products. There are some ways to make money in the new market, but they are different. We celebrate the new economics and frequently share success stories. I think if Mike had his way, TD would be mostly about sharing the new and innovative methods people are using to share their crafts and make a good living at it.
TD tends to go negative when we encounter stories that involve the people who refuse to adapt to the new realities and try to roll back time to an era when their old business models let them rake in lots of cash. Typically, those are gatekeepers or artists who made it big under the old system. The NYT is trying to do that. The thing that I find most amusing is that the folks promoting the paywall don't even seem to understand what made their old business model work.
Just to further the analogy a bit, the lock on the door is on a building that has had all four walls torn down, and the door is just standing there by itself. It is a simple matter to go around the locked door. But the xIAA et.al. are still convinced that the correct combination of lock and laws will be found eventually and keep people out of the building.
Meanwhile, independent artists are constructing new buildings all around them and inviting people into their establishments. But the owners of the original door are too fixated on their old door and lock to pay much attention to them.
The people pushing for COICA don't think long-term. They don't understand the law of unintended consequences. If they did either, they would not be in the mess they are in and looking for a quick-fix-that-won't-work like COICA.
This lawsuit has resulted in a ruling that gives newspapers and possibly all IP rights holders weaker rights than they had before. I think the most important aspect of the ruling is that the judge actually looked at the reasons given in the U.S. Constitution for having copyright and patent protection. Existing IP law seems like it has gone far beyond the stated constitutional purposes, and if judges start interpreting IP laws in terms of the Constitution it would be a watershed event. Even if the lawsuit itself is overturned, the opinion may represent a new way of looking at IP law.
Lots of people in the newspaper industry have been cheering on Righthaven, and other IP minimalists have been celebrating the mass lawsuit tactics of the Hurt Locker variety. It is pretty clear that judges are getting annoyed by the mass lawsuit tactics and abuses inherent in the system, and it seems like their annoyance is causing them to seek out new reasons to smack them down.
In general, I think that judges with burrs under their saddles making new case law is a bad thing. However, it does happen. And apparently it is happening. I wonder if the the IP minimalists are going to be cheering as the judges stir up other reasons for striking down these lawsuits.
As someone who works with college-aged students every day, this study rings true to me. The students may not be political in the traditional sense, but they know a lot more about what is going on now than they did 20 years ago. And they care about it. Today's students will also take action under the right circumstances.
I don't think most people understand today's youth. For one thing, they are pretty much off the radar of most polling systems.
There is also a tendency to put down young people that gets in the way of understanding them. Frankly, we even see that in some of the comments already posted in this thread. I have worked with young people my entire career, and the generation that is emerging is different than the others. Most of them are not interested in some of the traditional hot-button issues, and they are an independent bunch of people who are not going to be easy to herd into one of the traditional liberal or conservative labels.
The big question is, "Who gets the money?" How much actually goes to artists, and how much is kept by the gatekeepers. Second, which artists get the money? Chances are that small and new artists will see very little of it. Every royalty collection system I am aware of gives a disproportionate share to the large, established groups. Among other things, the large established groups generally are represented directly or indirectly by the gatekeepers themselves, so an additional share of the money that technically goes to the artists ends up flowing back to the gatekeepers.
Any proponent of a media collection tax should lay out a detailed plan up front describing how the money will be distributed.
>>I dunno about that. Johnny Appleseed might have a prior claim.
But Johnny Appleseed never registered a trademark on the name.
It's too bad he decided to do something useful with his time instead of protecting his IP. He would never survived in the modern environment with those type of priorities.
I wonder what people expect to find on social networks when they ask for the ability to snoop through records.
Fist, most people I know are somewhat discrete about what they post to social networks. Sure, there are cases where people brag about robbing a bank or doing a drug deal, but I think those types of people are probably telegraphing a bunch of other warning signs that there is a problem without any assistance from Facebook.
Second, would the bean counter checking my Facebook status recognize a problem if they saw it? Sure, my bookie, my loan shark, and my drug dealer are all on my friends list. However, FB isn't an ideal environment for arranging drug deals and shady loans, and having friends who do illegal things is not a crime. Where is red flashing light that says there is a problem?
Third, how much of what they find would be actionable or valid in a legal defense about why a person was rejected in the screening process? You might see some things that suggest some problems, but it's unlikely there is going to be enough to prove anything. If you look closely at anyone's social media persona you could probably find lots of things that suggest a problem, but finding actual proof of a problem would be pretty rare.
Finally, having access to the account could backfire big time on the bean counter who demands the password. The law of unintended consequences is likely to kick in. For example, there are a lot of questions that someone being hired for a job is not allowed to ask because just asking the question might show a bias or intention to not hire someone based on some form of discrimination. If the reviewer runs across the answers to the questions they are not allowed to ask, then would the applicant have the right to sue based on discrimination?
I am sure we will have personnel managers and other bean counters around for years who think that making people turn over their passwords for social networks is a good idea. There is also the case of people who just like to be nosy and snoop around in other people's business.
This story or a minor variation on it will be with us for a while.
Make dollar coin so that it doesn't look like a quarter
My biggest complaint with the SBA and gold dollar coin is that they are too similar to a quarter.
You will also find that dollar coins are very common in US cities that have transit systems based on dollar coins. People can adapt pretty easily if the market is flooded with the coins and there is a practical use for them.
After I come home from one of those cities I usually have several days of amusement as I unload the dollar coins on unsuspecting clerks in my hometown who are using the extra bin in their cash register to hold keys or paperclips or something other than dollar coins.
The hackers may have just killed off the secondary market. The hack works by tricking someone into giving you their ID. Another method to get the id would be to buy a used PS3 and take the ID. Then sell the used PS3. The hacker would wait a month or two to make sure the seller had verified that the system is working correctly and then use the ID from the sold unit. In the long term who would be willing to buy a used PS3? You could not trust any PS3 that had been out of your hands since it was first removed from the original box.
Game makers want to stop resale of games, but resale of game consoles is a boon for them. A resold console means that the new owner may buy games. Even if the new owner only buys one or two new games it is still better for the company than having the old unit sit in a closet or landfill. The console itself was probably sold at a loss, so anything that extends its life is a win for the company.
Further, the sale of old consoles helps sell new consoles. Gamers routinely sell old consoles on Ebay when new models come out. I doubt that they would be so eager to buy the new consoles if they knew that there was no market for the old ones.
Sony's action was bound to have a lot of unintended consequences. Killing the PS3 console resale market may be one of them.
>>that they copied the game initially, but then bought a copy for both themselves and a friend. Or the number of people who didn't ever buy a copy, but had three friends who learned about it through them that went on to buy copies.
On the post: Patent System Gone Mad: Google Doodles Is Now Patented
Registration system
On the post: Patent System Gone Mad: Google Doodles Is Now Patented
Re: VLC
Prior art is so narrowly defined by the patent system that it is practically meaningless. Examiners don't have time to look for prior art, and most of them are not familiar enough with the field that they are reviewing to recognize prior art if it existed.
Obviousness doesn't really have a working definition. And again, the examiners are not generally familiar enough with the fields they are reviewing to recognize when something is obvious.
On the post: Am I Violating The DMCA By Visiting The NYTimes With NoScript Enabled?
Re:
I dont' think most of us are even angry with the NYT. We are, I think, amused. It is kind of like seeing a banana peel lying on the sidewalk. We know someone is going to slip on it eventually. If we could pick it up we would, but we can't reach it. We can yell and holler to people to be careful, but no one is listening. Since we are pretty sure someone is going to slip on it eventually, all we can do is sit back and watch the show. Maybe we shouldn't be enjoying watch someone fall, but we know that the people who will be tripped up are likely to be arrogant stuffed shirts who are ignoring the world around them.
The unifying theme to the TD perspective is that the Internet and digital media have changed market for many products. There are some ways to make money in the new market, but they are different. We celebrate the new economics and frequently share success stories. I think if Mike had his way, TD would be mostly about sharing the new and innovative methods people are using to share their crafts and make a good living at it.
TD tends to go negative when we encounter stories that involve the people who refuse to adapt to the new realities and try to roll back time to an era when their old business models let them rake in lots of cash. Typically, those are gatekeepers or artists who made it big under the old system. The NYT is trying to do that. The thing that I find most amusing is that the folks promoting the paywall don't even seem to understand what made their old business model work.
On the post: NYTimes Columnists Telling Readers How To Get Around The Paywall
Re:
I suggest that you don't hold your breath while waiting.
On the post: Paul Vixie Explains Why COICA Is A Really Dumb Idea
Re: Same as the DMCA
Meanwhile, independent artists are constructing new buildings all around them and inviting people into their establishments. But the owners of the original door are too fixated on their old door and lock to pay much attention to them.
On the post: Paul Vixie Explains Why COICA Is A Really Dumb Idea
They don't think like that
On the post: Who Actually Felt 'Guilty' That They Read The NYTimes Online For Free?
Mike, people at the NY Times being delusional about their paywall is not news. It's proponents have been delusional about it from the beginning.
I would write more, but suddenly I feel wracked with guilt over the fifty-plus years I have watched free TV and listened to free radio.
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
One giant step (backwards) for newspapers
Lots of people in the newspaper industry have been cheering on Righthaven, and other IP minimalists have been celebrating the mass lawsuit tactics of the Hurt Locker variety. It is pretty clear that judges are getting annoyed by the mass lawsuit tactics and abuses inherent in the system, and it seems like their annoyance is causing them to seek out new reasons to smack them down.
In general, I think that judges with burrs under their saddles making new case law is a bad thing. However, it does happen. And apparently it is happening. I wonder if the the IP minimalists are going to be cheering as the judges stir up other reasons for striking down these lawsuits.
On the post: Study Suggests That The Internet Makes Youth 'More Engaged Citizens'
Study rings true
I don't think most people understand today's youth. For one thing, they are pretty much off the radar of most polling systems.
There is also a tendency to put down young people that gets in the way of understanding them. Frankly, we even see that in some of the comments already posted in this thread. I have worked with young people my entire career, and the generation that is emerging is different than the others. Most of them are not interested in some of the traditional hot-button issues, and they are an independent bunch of people who are not going to be easy to herd into one of the traditional liberal or conservative labels.
On the post: Why A Copyright Levy ('Music Tax') Is A Bad Idea: Unnecessary Attempt To Retain Old Power Structures
Who gets the money?
Any proponent of a media collection tax should lay out a detailed plan up front describing how the money will be distributed.
On the post: Apple Tries To Convince Trademark Board That App Store Really Means Apple Store
Re: Re:
But Johnny Appleseed never registered a trademark on the name.
It's too bad he decided to do something useful with his time instead of protecting his IP. He would never survived in the modern environment with those type of priorities.
On the post: Apple Tries To Convince Trademark Board That App Store Really Means Apple Store
On the post: The 'Stolen' Scream: Photographer Discovers His Image Is Everywhere... And Embraces It
But their agents and managers are more interested in getting paid. It is usually the middlemen who do the suing.
On the post: Canadian Political Party Demands Candidate's Social Media Logins To Run For Office
What do they hope to find
Fist, most people I know are somewhat discrete about what they post to social networks. Sure, there are cases where people brag about robbing a bank or doing a drug deal, but I think those types of people are probably telegraphing a bunch of other warning signs that there is a problem without any assistance from Facebook.
Second, would the bean counter checking my Facebook status recognize a problem if they saw it? Sure, my bookie, my loan shark, and my drug dealer are all on my friends list. However, FB isn't an ideal environment for arranging drug deals and shady loans, and having friends who do illegal things is not a crime. Where is red flashing light that says there is a problem?
Third, how much of what they find would be actionable or valid in a legal defense about why a person was rejected in the screening process? You might see some things that suggest some problems, but it's unlikely there is going to be enough to prove anything. If you look closely at anyone's social media persona you could probably find lots of things that suggest a problem, but finding actual proof of a problem would be pretty rare.
Finally, having access to the account could backfire big time on the bean counter who demands the password. The law of unintended consequences is likely to kick in. For example, there are a lot of questions that someone being hired for a job is not allowed to ask because just asking the question might show a bias or intention to not hire someone based on some form of discrimination. If the reviewer runs across the answers to the questions they are not allowed to ask, then would the applicant have the right to sue based on discrimination?
On the post: Canadian Political Party Demands Candidate's Social Media Logins To Run For Office
Small Minds
This story or a minor variation on it will be with us for a while.
On the post: GAO Suggests It's Time To Ditch Dollar Bills For Coins
Make dollar coin so that it doesn't look like a quarter
You will also find that dollar coins are very common in US cities that have transit systems based on dollar coins. People can adapt pretty easily if the market is flooded with the coins and there is a practical use for them.
After I come home from one of those cities I usually have several days of amusement as I unload the dollar coins on unsuspecting clerks in my hometown who are using the extra bin in their cash register to hold keys or paperclips or something other than dollar coins.
On the post: NY Times Lawyers Shut Down Blog Promoting The NY Times
Buy them sandboxes
On the post: Hackers Claim They Can Unban Banned PS3s While Banning Unmodded PS3s
Killed the secondary market
Game makers want to stop resale of games, but resale of game consoles is a boon for them. A resold console means that the new owner may buy games. Even if the new owner only buys one or two new games it is still better for the company than having the old unit sit in a closet or landfill. The console itself was probably sold at a loss, so anything that extends its life is a win for the company.
Further, the sale of old consoles helps sell new consoles. Gamers routinely sell old consoles on Ebay when new models come out. I doubt that they would be so eager to buy the new consoles if they knew that there was no market for the old ones.
Sony's action was bound to have a lot of unintended consequences. Killing the PS3 console resale market may be one of them.
On the post: Moby Says The Major Record Labels 'Should Die'
Re:
Except that the definition of "cream" and "top" have changed.
Old definition of cream: What the record labels were looking for
New definition of cream: What the fans are looking for
Old definition of Top: Hit the lottery with recording deal
New definition of Top: Getting your music heard and earning a living making music you love
On the post: Minecraft Creator Says 'No Such Thing As A Lost Sale'
Re: Thanks For Posting This
Every pirated copy is a test drive.
Next >>