Admittedly the time involved in recharging an electric car is a HUGE hurdle to overcome. Solar kits are one solution and allow for the car to charge as its driving or just sitting parked, but are hardly a complete solution.
The thought that there needs to be "filling station" every couple of miles is another one of those things that people can't get there heads around. With an electric car, you need an OUTLET. There seem to be plenty of those around.
I've watched Tesla Motors for about the past 5 years and their product is absolutely amazing. That said, if you've ever talked to anyone about their electric cars you would probably be equally amazed at the responses you hear.
While I personally haven't done a scientific study, I can say that more often than not, most people have a oddly low opinion of electric cars. The first thing you will hear is "What is the range?" Even if you can show that the range is well over 200 miles per charge, the next question you will hear is "What do I do if it runs out of charge?"
The most amazing objection I've heard is the fear of running out of charge. It would appear there is a huge mental transaction when it comes to electricity vs gasoline, because most of us don't think much of our cars running out of gasoline.
The point is that speculating as to whether or not there is an app market for this type of car is extraordinarily premature, since the car itself needs to gain some traction.
Something tells me that the lobbyists for the auto industry don't want to see any cars on the road anytime soon that need servicing every 100k miles and don't have all the belts and other combustion engine parts that wear out so often. Apps are hardly the biggest concern here.
I really don't think Glenn Britt is insane enough to believe what he said. I think that he simply misspoke. He is correct in assuming that people who use the net less will expect to pay less, as that is just natural human nature. I don't think he meant that people will "in their hearts" know they are going to pay more. He most likely meant that people are sheep and will simply accept the tiered pricing that his company imposes upon them because they can and they will justify it by blaming it on usage. Not that it has anything to do with network congestion, but rather TW needs to increase its profit margin as its customers realize that they no longer need its cable TV offering or voice products.
I'm not really sure why it takes a "study" to figure out that a communications platform that exposes everyone to the views and opinions of people around the globe would have an impact on how people act and think.
DUH is the only comment that really comes to mind.
Maybe when people stop thinking of the internet as a small TV screen and more like a BIG smartphone, things will start making more sense.
Ok only two things explain the statement from Jon Bon Jovi. Either A, it was written by a label exec or B, Jon Bon Jovi needs rehab for all the drugs he's been taking.
Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but by the time Jon Bon Jovi was a hit, his band wasn't on vinyl, but rather on cassettes and just switching to CDs. If he is remembering his childhood of vinyl, then why is he blaming Steve Jobs? iTunes didn't have anything to do with the death of vinyl and you can look at cover art on iTunes just like you could on cassettes and CDs, so Im not sure what kind of acid trip he is on.
Personally I don't remember EVER buying a record based on the cover art. I may have bought an album and thought the cover art was cool afterwards, but I bought based on some song I heard on the radio or heard about through friends.
Opportunity knocks and the music industry says "Go away, Im waiting for opportunity."
Now maybe Im looking at this the wrong way, but this seems to be completely BACKWARD. The music industry should be paying this service a license to use their technology and then collecting the projected profits for themselves.
Promising the labels half a billion dollars to avoid a lawsuit is like giving a bunch of crack addicts a big bag of crack and saying "You can have this big bag of crack right now if you promise to give up your addiction." What do you think the response will be????? The labels will just suck the well dry and when the money runs out they will sue for whatever is left of the dried up well, claiming that the service is just another form of piracy.
Personally, I think the idea is a good one, but it should be implemented by the labels and they should license the technology. If it doesn't work out, at least they tried a new business model.
To: CEO Summit Entertainment
cc: Board of Directors
From: The legal dept.
Re: Trademark Protection
We, your legal team from the firm Dewey Cheetum & Howe, urge you to disregard the negative publicity surrounding our efforts to protect your trademark. While we understand that Twilight has been in use for the marketing of many products and services over the years, none of those were nearly as successful as the brand created by Summit Entertainment. Therefore all other uses of the trademarked Twilight should, at the very least pay an annual license fee to Summit Entertainment for use of the word.
We expect quite a bit of resistance from those abusing your mark as well as from the court systems in the US and EU and so we are asking for another $10mil USD in order to properly represent your interest. We are certain that our efforts are saving Summit Entertainment far more than the $10mil we are asking to fund our ongoing litigation.
I'm trying to understand why there should be a broadband tax for the entertainment industry. It seems that if one industry can claim losses because of the internet and demand a tax, that there are other industries that can do the same. So where does it end?
Once the process begins, each new broadband tax will just get easier to pass. The government will take their cut and the industry organizations will take theirs, and the price of broadband will steadily increase to the highest point that the market can bear.
And don't think that the telcos and cable companies will not want their piece of the pie for any tax that they are billing their customers.
Ummm I'm not so sure about that being very straightforward.
"Unless he had a contract stipulating otherwise, Ainsworth did the work for hire, so Lucas owns the property."
It was my understanding that work for hire has to be stipulated in contracts, and if it isn't then the work is owned by the creator not the employer. So no, its not automatically work for hire unless stated otherwise.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with selling DLs in the digital economy, but you want to know the problem, so here goes.
The problem is pricing. It's VERY difficult for us, the consumers, to justify the pricing. I think ebooks are GREAT. When I look at the prices, I want to vomit. When I buy a paperback, I can rationalize that there is a definite cost in making the product, and I know that when Im done with it I can resell the book if I so choose. So it makes sense to me to pay the price for the book.
I can't make that leap for ebooks. I'm being asked to buy a product that has almost no cost to make or distribute and I don't really own it at the end of the day, nor can I resell it. So why does it cost almost exactly the same as the physical copy? With that said, if I can DL it for free, why wouldn't I? Oh yeah, that's illegal.
Now here's the kicker... Am I a lost sale? At the inflated price, no. Because I wouldn't have bought (so I become a criminal too). BUT.... If the price was something reasonable like 50% - 75% lower, I am no longer a lost sale or criminal.
Your last comment about the digital DL sales economy growing is a bit confusing. If everything is working fine, then why complain about a different opinion? Why is it backward thinking when some people figure out that they can increase their profit by giving away their infinite goods? Seems to me that if FREE infinite goods works better for some people it would be "incredibly backward" for them to choose the business model that results in less profit.
As I read the title to the article, I have to admit that I thought it was a factual statement. Then I read further and found it was an educated guess. I guess it's difficult to group reading AND comprehension for some people.
WOW Mike... It seems that you really touched a nerve with this one. What I find interesting is why so many people feel so strongly about this. Ok so, Limewire is down. Limewire Pirate Edition is up and running and so is Frostwire and many other P2P networks. So why do people care so much about your opinion of why the music publisher's suit was settled?
This reminds me of the demise of Napster. The recording industry proudly beat their drums and declared the beast dead.
I love this comment....
"FUD is all this blog deals in, day in and day out. That's why no one takes it seriously."
And Limewire is gone and all those people that don't take this blog seriously have awakened and realize that file sharing is bad. Thank you RIAA/MPAA for saving us from ourselves. I need to run out an buy some music now that that file sharing is over.
Ok I was going to comment about Assange, but then Crap for Brains, just had to bring up Al Gore and a "what if..."
Let me help you out CfB. IF Al Gore had been President on 9/11, the only thing different that would have happened is that the whole Iraq conflict may have been avoided.
What you can't seem to grasp is that murderers within the US do far more killing of US citizens than foreign terrorists. Quick lesson in geography CfB... Those two big bodies of water on either side of the US are the primary reason there haven't been any wars on US soil since the Civil War. AGAIN that was US citizens killing US citizens.
Bush's biggest success was in terrorizing US citizens and eroding the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution. Next time you are taking your shoes off to get through a TSA check point and then sitting on your terrorist free airplane and reading about the latest murders in the US, think about what if Al Gore had been President. Nah, you'll probably be warning the flight attendant about the president of some Indian company who is sitting in first class with a turban on.
It's worth a shot, but I would think that the price structure is all wrong. As someone already stated, most of us don't want to buy an album with only 3 songs that we like. Which means it would have to be done on a per song basis as well as a per album basis.
The problem with the pyramid occurs at the secondary and lower levels, in order to be effective against "piracy" the pyramid model would need to rely on high sales volume and low pricing which would not be as lucrative as record labels want, but then something is better than nothing.
Sorry you are having such a tough time with this reading thing AC. I think Mike answered your comment quite clearly, but since you seemed to have missed it, I'll repost for you.
"Of course, that always makes me wonder why he bothers spending time paying attention to crappy content. After all, one of the nice things about the internet is that you only have to pay attention to what you like."
You complain about the channels on cable and how it was better when you had 3 networks + locals + PBS. Newsflash!!! It's still like that. You choose to purchase the seemingly infinite channel universe, even though you have the option to just have what you say you felt was better. I don't like tweets, so imagine this; I don't use twitter. Guess what? I don't get bothered by any "I took a dump" tweets. I have a Facebook page and I've only invited my REAL friends onto it. Imagine that? So I only get updates from the people I actually WANT to hear from.
Maybe you were not aware that the internet is a communications platform, not a broadcast medium. You don't just turn it on and it spits crap at you, you have to invite that crap into your browser.
I seriously don't understand complaining about crap that you don't have to look at. Sure I run into crappy content while surfing. It takes about 1 second to close the window on it and resume searching. Even better, sometimes the content is so incredibly bad that I feel compelled to share it with friends so that we can all have a laugh at how incredibly bad it is. I wonder if that makes it good crap.
If the FBI is wasting resources chasing anyone with an Arab sounding name who posts anything relating to a bomb on a blog, they really have no clue where to look for terrorists. Makes you wonder how they find kidnappers or murderers.
I'm a bit unclear. Are academics legally bound from sharing their research with the world? It seems to me that with current distribution methods they could easily just type up a pdf and release it when and how they choose, and even charge for it for their own personal gain if they so choose.
If the music and movie industries think they have it bad, they should lend a shoulder to cry on to publishers. It seems authors have more power than ever before, since the only thing they really need is a bit of marketing and can do everything else themselves.
You beat me to that reply! Take some advice Mike...
Never argue with idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
It's clear this guy is a low level criminal, although 15 years in prison is hardly appropriate punishment. As usual, you are correct in wondering WTF this has to do with IP. Your article did leave me scratching my head and wondering why there is no mention of the anti-hacking laws, as it seems that planting a virus in the machines is more a violation of those laws than IP law.
Sometimes the obvious is SO obvious that we just don't think about it. I'm actually AMAZED that its not been stated here before, or maybe I just didn't see it.
Copyright infringement is a crime. We hear about the lawyers and the court battles all the time but for once the courts got it spot on. It's a crime, so the police need to be involved first. Someone needs to be arrested and brought to court.
Lobbyists don't like that kinda talk because its hard as hell to arrest tens of millions of people. Might as well declare a free pass month on murder, rape, theft, and of course, child porn.
Well since it was coined here, I might as well throw it in the barrel of comments.
Why is it that I can just imagine a lot of people with a lot of spare time uploading gay porn on their websites and including (Jim) Alex Petrov in the metadata. That and loads of backlinks.
Not only is it a Streisand Effect, but it would seem that it would make Google's rankings quite accurate and ruin his case completely, if it were not already hopelessly doomed.
If you are really scared of gay porn associate with your name, why would you ever broadcast that fear????? He really has no clue how the net works.
Mike, Im gunna start by saying I love your blog and agree with a lot of it but....
This post is inflammatory and misleading as most of the trolls you shine the spotlight on.
Yeah its a shame that Company A forced Company B to back down with bogus claims, but as you stated there was no legal precedent set. While I can certainly understand your outrage and concern about a "chilling effect"; when I read the title, it certainly implied that there was some precedent set. I was halfway done with the article when I read there was none.
Kudos on a great blog in general, but this article more of faint flickering of things that "might" come to pass, IF a bunch of bogus legal arguments are accepted by a court.
It looks like Company A's legal team just looked in the big book of "internet laws" and chose all of them, thinking "one of these HAS to be be able to protect our client's business model." Since its a crime reporting fight, I'm surprised there were no shouts of "but..but...but.. THE CHILDREN"
On the post: Does Your Car Need Its Own App Store?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cart before the horse
The thought that there needs to be "filling station" every couple of miles is another one of those things that people can't get there heads around. With an electric car, you need an OUTLET. There seem to be plenty of those around.
On the post: Does Your Car Need Its Own App Store?
Re: Re: Re: Cart before the horse
While I personally haven't done a scientific study, I can say that more often than not, most people have a oddly low opinion of electric cars. The first thing you will hear is "What is the range?" Even if you can show that the range is well over 200 miles per charge, the next question you will hear is "What do I do if it runs out of charge?"
The most amazing objection I've heard is the fear of running out of charge. It would appear there is a huge mental transaction when it comes to electricity vs gasoline, because most of us don't think much of our cars running out of gasoline.
The point is that speculating as to whether or not there is an app market for this type of car is extraordinarily premature, since the car itself needs to gain some traction.
Something tells me that the lobbyists for the auto industry don't want to see any cars on the road anytime soon that need servicing every 100k miles and don't have all the belts and other combustion engine parts that wear out so often. Apps are hardly the biggest concern here.
On the post: Fantasy Island, Time Warner Style: You WANT To Pay More For Broadband
Reality check
On the post: Study Suggests That The Internet Makes Youth 'More Engaged Citizens'
Score one for the DUH column
DUH is the only comment that really comes to mind.
Maybe when people stop thinking of the internet as a small TV screen and more like a BIG smartphone, things will start making more sense.
On the post: Bon Jovi Thinks Steve Jobs Killed Music; More Old Rockers Shooing Those Darn Kids Off Their Lawn
Hmmmmm
Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but by the time Jon Bon Jovi was a hit, his band wasn't on vinyl, but rather on cassettes and just switching to CDs. If he is remembering his childhood of vinyl, then why is he blaming Steve Jobs? iTunes didn't have anything to do with the death of vinyl and you can look at cover art on iTunes just like you could on cassettes and CDs, so Im not sure what kind of acid trip he is on.
Personally I don't remember EVER buying a record based on the cover art. I may have bought an album and thought the cover art was cool afterwards, but I bought based on some song I heard on the radio or heard about through friends.
On the post: New Music Locker Startup Looks More Like Sucker's Bet To Transfer Cash From Investors To Music Labels
Bass Ackward
Now maybe Im looking at this the wrong way, but this seems to be completely BACKWARD. The music industry should be paying this service a license to use their technology and then collecting the projected profits for themselves.
Promising the labels half a billion dollars to avoid a lawsuit is like giving a bunch of crack addicts a big bag of crack and saying "You can have this big bag of crack right now if you promise to give up your addiction." What do you think the response will be????? The labels will just suck the well dry and when the money runs out they will sue for whatever is left of the dried up well, claiming that the service is just another form of piracy.
Personally, I think the idea is a good one, but it should be implemented by the labels and they should license the technology. If it doesn't work out, at least they tried a new business model.
On the post: Bath & Bodyworks Goes To Court To Explain To Summit Entertainment That The Word Twilight Existed Before The Movie
Re:
To: CEO Summit Entertainment
cc: Board of Directors
From: The legal dept.
Re: Trademark Protection
We, your legal team from the firm Dewey Cheetum & Howe, urge you to disregard the negative publicity surrounding our efforts to protect your trademark. While we understand that Twilight has been in use for the marketing of many products and services over the years, none of those were nearly as successful as the brand created by Summit Entertainment. Therefore all other uses of the trademarked Twilight should, at the very least pay an annual license fee to Summit Entertainment for use of the word.
We expect quite a bit of resistance from those abusing your mark as well as from the court systems in the US and EU and so we are asking for another $10mil USD in order to properly represent your interest. We are certain that our efforts are saving Summit Entertainment far more than the $10mil we are asking to fund our ongoing litigation.
On the post: Why A Copyright Levy ('Music Tax') Is A Bad Idea: Unnecessary Attempt To Retain Old Power Structures
Why???
Once the process begins, each new broadband tax will just get easier to pass. The government will take their cut and the industry organizations will take theirs, and the price of broadband will steadily increase to the highest point that the market can bear.
And don't think that the telcos and cable companies will not want their piece of the pie for any tax that they are billing their customers.
On the post: Questions About Copyright On Stormtrooper Costume Hit UK Supreme Court
Re: Ridiculous
"Unless he had a contract stipulating otherwise, Ainsworth did the work for hire, so Lucas owns the property."
It was my understanding that work for hire has to be stipulated in contracts, and if it isn't then the work is owned by the creator not the employer. So no, its not automatically work for hire unless stated otherwise.
It would appear your comment is bass ackward.
On the post: Case Study: How TED Learned That 'Giving It Away' Increased Both Popularity And Revenue
Re: This blog makes no sense.
The problem is pricing. It's VERY difficult for us, the consumers, to justify the pricing. I think ebooks are GREAT. When I look at the prices, I want to vomit. When I buy a paperback, I can rationalize that there is a definite cost in making the product, and I know that when Im done with it I can resell the book if I so choose. So it makes sense to me to pay the price for the book.
I can't make that leap for ebooks. I'm being asked to buy a product that has almost no cost to make or distribute and I don't really own it at the end of the day, nor can I resell it. So why does it cost almost exactly the same as the physical copy? With that said, if I can DL it for free, why wouldn't I? Oh yeah, that's illegal.
Now here's the kicker... Am I a lost sale? At the inflated price, no. Because I wouldn't have bought (so I become a criminal too). BUT.... If the price was something reasonable like 50% - 75% lower, I am no longer a lost sale or criminal.
Your last comment about the digital DL sales economy growing is a bit confusing. If everything is working fine, then why complain about a different opinion? Why is it backward thinking when some people figure out that they can increase their profit by giving away their infinite goods? Seems to me that if FREE infinite goods works better for some people it would be "incredibly backward" for them to choose the business model that results in less profit.
On the post: Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question
WOW
WOW Mike... It seems that you really touched a nerve with this one. What I find interesting is why so many people feel so strongly about this. Ok so, Limewire is down. Limewire Pirate Edition is up and running and so is Frostwire and many other P2P networks. So why do people care so much about your opinion of why the music publisher's suit was settled?
This reminds me of the demise of Napster. The recording industry proudly beat their drums and declared the beast dead.
I love this comment....
"FUD is all this blog deals in, day in and day out. That's why no one takes it seriously."
And Limewire is gone and all those people that don't take this blog seriously have awakened and realize that file sharing is bad. Thank you RIAA/MPAA for saving us from ourselves. I need to run out an buy some music now that that file sharing is over.
On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?
Re: Re:
Let me help you out CfB. IF Al Gore had been President on 9/11, the only thing different that would have happened is that the whole Iraq conflict may have been avoided.
What you can't seem to grasp is that murderers within the US do far more killing of US citizens than foreign terrorists. Quick lesson in geography CfB... Those two big bodies of water on either side of the US are the primary reason there haven't been any wars on US soil since the Civil War. AGAIN that was US citizens killing US citizens.
Bush's biggest success was in terrorizing US citizens and eroding the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution. Next time you are taking your shoes off to get through a TSA check point and then sitting on your terrorist free airplane and reading about the latest murders in the US, think about what if Al Gore had been President. Nah, you'll probably be warning the flight attendant about the president of some Indian company who is sitting in first class with a turban on.
On the post: Rethinking Music Selling Incentives: Can A Pyramid Scheme Help Save Music Sales?
Can it work?
The problem with the pyramid occurs at the secondary and lower levels, in order to be effective against "piracy" the pyramid model would need to rely on high sales volume and low pricing which would not be as lucrative as record labels want, but then something is better than nothing.
On the post: Is The Internet Enabling Bad Content... Or Killing Bad Content?
Re:
"Of course, that always makes me wonder why he bothers spending time paying attention to crappy content. After all, one of the nice things about the internet is that you only have to pay attention to what you like."
You complain about the channels on cable and how it was better when you had 3 networks + locals + PBS. Newsflash!!! It's still like that. You choose to purchase the seemingly infinite channel universe, even though you have the option to just have what you say you felt was better. I don't like tweets, so imagine this; I don't use twitter. Guess what? I don't get bothered by any "I took a dump" tweets. I have a Facebook page and I've only invited my REAL friends onto it. Imagine that? So I only get updates from the people I actually WANT to hear from.
Maybe you were not aware that the internet is a communications platform, not a broadcast medium. You don't just turn it on and it spits crap at you, you have to invite that crap into your browser.
I seriously don't understand complaining about crap that you don't have to look at. Sure I run into crappy content while surfing. It takes about 1 second to close the window on it and resume searching. Even better, sometimes the content is so incredibly bad that I feel compelled to share it with friends so that we can all have a laugh at how incredibly bad it is. I wonder if that makes it good crap.
On the post: Student Who Found GPS Device On His Car Due To Reddit Comment Sues The FBI
*facepalm*
If the FBI is wasting resources chasing anyone with an Arab sounding name who posts anything relating to a bomb on a blog, they really have no clue where to look for terrorists. Makes you wonder how they find kidnappers or murderers.
On the post: The Artificially High Price Of Academic Journals And How It Impacts Everyone
I'm confused...
If the music and movie industries think they have it bad, they should lend a shoulder to cry on to publishers. It seems authors have more power than ever before, since the only thing they really need is a bit of marketing and can do everything else themselves.
On the post: Programmer Faces 15 Years In Jail For Planting Virus That Automatically Broke Whac-A-Mole Games
Re: Re:
You beat me to that reply! Take some advice Mike...
Never argue with idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
It's clear this guy is a low level criminal, although 15 years in prison is hardly appropriate punishment. As usual, you are correct in wondering WTF this has to do with IP. Your article did leave me scratching my head and wondering why there is no mention of the anti-hacking laws, as it seems that planting a virus in the machines is more a violation of those laws than IP law.
Maybe I'm just too dense.
On the post: iiNet Wins Again: Australian Appeals Court Says ISP Not Responsible For Copyright Infringers
Ok that was FUNNY
Copyright infringement is a crime. We hear about the lawyers and the court battles all the time but for once the courts got it spot on. It's a crime, so the police need to be involved first. Someone needs to be arrested and brought to court.
Lobbyists don't like that kinda talk because its hard as hell to arrest tens of millions of people. Might as well declare a free pass month on murder, rape, theft, and of course, child porn.
On the post: Yet Another Person Sues Google Because They Don't Like Pornographic Results When People Search On Their Name
Streisand Effect.......
Why is it that I can just imagine a lot of people with a lot of spare time uploading gay porn on their websites and including (Jim) Alex Petrov in the metadata. That and loads of backlinks.
Not only is it a Streisand Effect, but it would seem that it would make Google's rankings quite accurate and ruin his case completely, if it were not already hopelessly doomed.
If you are really scared of gay porn associate with your name, why would you ever broadcast that fear????? He really has no clue how the net works.
On the post: The Privatization Of Public Data Sets A Bad Precedent
Big fan, but.....
This post is inflammatory and misleading as most of the trolls you shine the spotlight on.
Yeah its a shame that Company A forced Company B to back down with bogus claims, but as you stated there was no legal precedent set. While I can certainly understand your outrage and concern about a "chilling effect"; when I read the title, it certainly implied that there was some precedent set. I was halfway done with the article when I read there was none.
Kudos on a great blog in general, but this article more of faint flickering of things that "might" come to pass, IF a bunch of bogus legal arguments are accepted by a court.
It looks like Company A's legal team just looked in the big book of "internet laws" and chose all of them, thinking "one of these HAS to be be able to protect our client's business model." Since its a crime reporting fight, I'm surprised there were no shouts of "but..but...but.. THE CHILDREN"
Next >>