Correct fighting piracy is a waste of money. What the piracy fight promotes is the passage of laws that protect so-called intellectual property so that the company can use it to shut down the open source competitor by claiming infringement.
From a strict utopian free-market economic perspective, proprietary software companies should be more worried about open source software since it could displace them (take away their business and bankrupt them).
However, we don't live in a utopian free-market system. We live in a world of politics and perception. Loudly claiming with much fanfare that piracy hurts the poor programming grandmother putting her disabled daughter through college elicits much public sympathy. With appropriate "donations" politicians will swoon at the chance to pass laws to protect the so-called intellectual property of the poor hardworking grandmother. The end result, a protected business model.
Since we are supposed to live in a free-market society, a proprietary software company simply can not argue against "competition". So even though open software may be a greater threat, the posturing of the proprietary software company has to create the "red-herring" of piracy in order to "force" the creation of a favorable business environment "protected" by public perception and the legal system.
A bank is running a commercial on how to prevent identity theft. That commercial shows a "thief" stealing a credit card application from the trash. The bank then encourages you to enroll, for a fee of course, in their identity protection program.
This is insane, the banks and credit card companies could easily prevent this security hole by simply not sending out these solicitations. The fact that they haven't stopped sending them implies that they must be making more money by "allowing" identity theft than in preventing the problem.
Furthermore, banks and credit card companies are obligated, to a degree, to make sure that transactions are valid. The identity theft protection programs really amounts to the banks and credit cards charging you for a service that they should be providing when you use your check or credit card.
Where I work, we are getting hit with the yea olde budget short fall lamentations with the usual appeals to cut costs. The irony, we are getting an enterprise license from Microsoft for Office 2007. For 90% of us Open Office would work just fine. Its free!!!!
Since Russia stimulated us to get our space program together, maybe our government can get stimulated to look at free software. Might help our budget deficient.
Why not an industry code of conduct? It amazes me how much the industry opposes regulation, but they also refuse to make any public commitments to the consumer. This leaves the consumer a victim of any arbitrary and capricious actions implemented by the IPSs.
If any industry refuses to acknowledge that it has responsibility to act ethically if we want a civilized society it deserves to be regulated. One just has to look at the failure of our financial institutions today. The ISPs are not far behind.
Anyway, if they are making money off our data, we should be getting a royalty!
The REAL focus of this post should questioning why these services are not being provided as part of the product as a free feature. Yes I realize that companies want to make money and that they will attempt to sell you services that are essentially worthless. But there should be limits.
Banks and credit card companies have been sending out solicitations for identity theft protection. Seems to me that preventing fraudulent use of credit cards and checks to a large degree is their responsibility. So why should we pay for a service that is their responsibility? (Yes the customer has an obligation to protect their card or check from fraudulent use too.)
Since companies claim that they selling us products (such as mobile phones) for our benefit; for our benefit they should be providing safety features at no cost to us. After all, our legal system (in part) is based on suing those who sold us unsafe products. Turning the mobile phone off does not make it safe! (humor, for those so challenged.)
Against Monopoly has a post Under the dark of night where the copyright czar and the drug czar were compared. I just made the comment below there, before seeing this post.
"A question. Since a comparison has been made between the drug czar and the copyright czar, would the copyright czar begin to employ the same tactics as those found in the war-against-drugs? The New York Times just recently reported "NATO Agrees to Take Aim at Afghan Drug Trade".
So will we be seeing the use of military force worldwide to seize illicit CDs and DVDs in the obscure corners of the world? Initially this may not be the case, but czar's attempt to aggrandize their power as demonstrated by expanding our efforts in Afghanistan to now include an anti-drug effort. Using the military as a US "police force" to enforce our laws outside of the US detracts from its mission of protecting the US.
Somehow I think that we would be spending more (money and lives) on these police efforts than the CDs/DVDs would be worth. In a free market system, it should not be the responsibility of the government to protect your business model. If you can't make money, too bad."
People are entitled to change their opinion based on facts. So it may be legitimate to say one thing when campaigning and then switch after the election is over. It is unfortunate that we won't know the truth, whatever that is, until after the election.
The really good politicians do not lie, they simply use "fact" in a highly selectively manner to uphold whatever they claim.
I have been somewhat surprised that the media has not picked up on this with statements made by Obama at the last debate.
Obama has been saying that we need to pull of Iraq. Surprisingly he came out, at the last debate, to say that we need greater involvement in Afghanistan. Considering his position on Iraq, his Afghan statement appears to be out of place. I suspect that he is attempting to appear tough militarily while at the same time trying not to appear inconsistent with his prior statements.
After the election, if he is elected, I would assume that a new study will magically conclude that we should not be involved in Afghanistan and Obama will "revise" his approach based on this "new" information.
"But protected music cannot be burned onto data CDs, only onto uncompressed audio CDs. If you bought 200 protected songs from Wal-Mart, you'd have to burn 13 CDs and re-encode all of them back onto your computer -- fairly time consuming. And making matters worse, all of that music would end up having been processed by a second audio compression algorithm (most likely MP3) in addition to the original WMA compression. Not only did Wal-Mart's advice on how to deal with its proposed DRM plan involve a hassle and extra expense on the part of the consumer, but that extra round of compression could also hurt the songs' audio quality."
Since this is an election year, voting is a hot topic. Also the issue of electronic voting has been a hot topic for a while as the manufactures don't want to allow their voting machines to be inspected and the e-voting machines are evidently less than reliable. The debate on voting, however, seems to missing a very critical security issue. Are the people showing up to vote actually qualified to vote?
Recently, Fox News and other media have been running a story on ACORN. According to these stories ACORN is registering people who would not be qualified to vote. Clearly this security issue needs to be solved otherwise it would be essentially pointless to argue over the best method of counting votes.
While the content of a packet may be protected under a privacy law, the origin/destination of the packets would still be known to the ISP. In theory, the ISP could then conveniently "loose" the packet (or other dirty trick) if they don't like the origin/destination of the packet. Any thoughts on this?
So its OK for a company to steal content from the public to use it for their benefit, but it is not OK for the public to quote something a company has written under fair use?
Every voting system (paper, punch cards, electronic, etc.) is subject to some form of fraud, so the question becomes, which voting system is subject to the least fraud?
One, question overlooked in this debate occurs before we even get into the voting booth. Is that person even eligible to vote?
To me the problem with the e-voting machines is that e-voting machine manufactures want to overcharge the public and use proprietary software.
On the issue of cost. I don't know if we have a real competitive bidding process or not.
On the issue of proprietary software. The public is paying for and using these machines, the code should be in the public domain. Period, Period, Period.
There is nothing magical about e-voting. As you point out "The machines are fairly low-tech (no Windoze !), reliable and cheap to produce." Too bad the concept of e-voting been blown out of proportion.
An unappreciated "proof" that we have achieved an "excess" is when shows such as the Simpsons and the lowly commercial begin to make fun of things such as e-voting and so-called intellectual property.
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) has been a simmering issue for the past 10+ years. (If I remember correctly) Periodically, over the years, there is the occasional news story with a Democratic and Republican politician smiling before the camera discussing how they both agree that the AMT is an onerous tax and that they will fix it. This has been going on and on and on and on, with no fix.
The AMT issue has once again popped with Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. However in this case it is hidden in the noise level. Evidently an AMT "patch" has been proposed. I assume that it is simply a temporary fix for show, I don't know the details.
My point, we have had a known tax issue for XX years, our politicians claim (smiling) before the media camera's how they are diligently working at solving the AMT problem. Clearly, since the issue has not been solved, they really have had no intention of solving it. Its all show and no substance. With this bailout, we are simply getting another temporary "patch", that does not really solve the problem. Another case of blowing hot air and "solving" a problem with smoke and mirrors. Well, at least I will save a bit when buying wooden arrow shafts!
On the post: Should Proprietary Software Companies Be More Concerned About Open Source Or Piracy?
Re: Re: Wrong Question Being Aksed
On the post: Should Proprietary Software Companies Be More Concerned About Open Source Or Piracy?
Wrong Question Being Aksed
However, we don't live in a utopian free-market system. We live in a world of politics and perception. Loudly claiming with much fanfare that piracy hurts the poor programming grandmother putting her disabled daughter through college elicits much public sympathy. With appropriate "donations" politicians will swoon at the chance to pass laws to protect the so-called intellectual property of the poor hardworking grandmother. The end result, a protected business model.
Since we are supposed to live in a free-market society, a proprietary software company simply can not argue against "competition". So even though open software may be a greater threat, the posturing of the proprietary software company has to create the "red-herring" of piracy in order to "force" the creation of a favorable business environment "protected" by public perception and the legal system.
On the post: Dear Verizon: I Haven't Been An MCI Customer In Four Years
Marketing Insanity
This is insane, the banks and credit card companies could easily prevent this security hole by simply not sending out these solicitations. The fact that they haven't stopped sending them implies that they must be making more money by "allowing" identity theft than in preventing the problem.
Furthermore, banks and credit card companies are obligated, to a degree, to make sure that transactions are valid. The identity theft protection programs really amounts to the banks and credit cards charging you for a service that they should be providing when you use your check or credit card.
On the post: Russia Realizes That Free Software Beats Sending Principals To Siberia For Piracy
Re: Go Linux
On the post: Russia Realizes That Free Software Beats Sending Principals To Siberia For Piracy
Go Linux
Since Russia stimulated us to get our space program together, maybe our government can get stimulated to look at free software. Might help our budget deficient.
On the post: Tribune Company The Latest (And Biggest) In A Growing List To Drop Associated Press
New York Times Article
On the post: Is Public Shame Enough To Keep ISPs From Doing Bad Stuff With Your Data?
Re: Re: Regulation Deregulation Farce Pt.2
On the post: Is Public Shame Enough To Keep ISPs From Doing Bad Stuff With Your Data?
Shamming not enough
If any industry refuses to acknowledge that it has responsibility to act ethically if we want a civilized society it deserves to be regulated. One just has to look at the failure of our financial institutions today. The ISPs are not far behind.
Anyway, if they are making money off our data, we should be getting a royalty!
On the post: Would You Pay To Make Sure People Couldn't Call You While Driving?
Wrong Question
Banks and credit card companies have been sending out solicitations for identity theft protection. Seems to me that preventing fraudulent use of credit cards and checks to a large degree is their responsibility. So why should we pay for a service that is their responsibility? (Yes the customer has an obligation to protect their card or check from fraudulent use too.)
Since companies claim that they selling us products (such as mobile phones) for our benefit; for our benefit they should be providing safety features at no cost to us. After all, our legal system (in part) is based on suing those who sold us unsafe products. Turning the mobile phone off does not make it safe! (humor, for those so challenged.)
On the post: President Signs ProIP Bill Into Law; White House Gets Copyright Czar
Copyright Czar and Drug Czar
"A question. Since a comparison has been made between the drug czar and the copyright czar, would the copyright czar begin to employ the same tactics as those found in the war-against-drugs? The New York Times just recently reported "NATO Agrees to Take Aim at Afghan Drug Trade".
So will we be seeing the use of military force worldwide to seize illicit CDs and DVDs in the obscure corners of the world? Initially this may not be the case, but czar's attempt to aggrandize their power as demonstrated by expanding our efforts in Afghanistan to now include an anti-drug effort. Using the military as a US "police force" to enforce our laws outside of the US detracts from its mission of protecting the US.
Somehow I think that we would be spending more (money and lives) on these police efforts than the CDs/DVDs would be worth. In a free market system, it should not be the responsibility of the government to protect your business model. If you can't make money, too bad."
On the post: What If We Put Lie Detectors On Politicians During Debates?
Re: Where did all of the reasoning go?
On the post: What If We Put Lie Detectors On Politicians During Debates?
Don't Lie - Parse the Truth
I have been somewhat surprised that the media has not picked up on this with statements made by Obama at the last debate.
Obama has been saying that we need to pull of Iraq. Surprisingly he came out, at the last debate, to say that we need greater involvement in Afghanistan. Considering his position on Iraq, his Afghan statement appears to be out of place. I suspect that he is attempting to appear tough militarily while at the same time trying not to appear inconsistent with his prior statements.
After the election, if he is elected, I would assume that a new study will magically conclude that we should not be involved in Afghanistan and Obama will "revise" his approach based on this "new" information.
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: WalMart Changes Its Mind, Keeps DRM Servers Running (For Now)
Wired Article
"But protected music cannot be burned onto data CDs, only onto uncompressed audio CDs. If you bought 200 protected songs from Wal-Mart, you'd have to burn 13 CDs and re-encode all of them back onto your computer -- fairly time consuming. And making matters worse, all of that music would end up having been processed by a second audio compression algorithm (most likely MP3) in addition to the original WMA compression. Not only did Wal-Mart's advice on how to deal with its proposed DRM plan involve a hassle and extra expense on the part of the consumer, but that extra round of compression could also hurt the songs' audio quality."
On the post: New Jersey Elections Board Says This Election Is Too Important To Allow Outside Observers
Voter Eligiblity
Recently, Fox News and other media have been running a story on ACORN. According to these stories ACORN is registering people who would not be qualified to vote. Clearly this security issue needs to be solved otherwise it would be essentially pointless to argue over the best method of counting votes.
On the post: Forget Net Neutrality Laws; Just Strengthen Privacy Laws
Would the ISP Would Still Know the Destination?
On the post: Disney Used Anonymous Online Quotes In Ads
Fair Use
Associated Press
On the post: When Even The Simpsons Make Fun Of E-Voting Machines...
Re: India uses voting machines
One, question overlooked in this debate occurs before we even get into the voting booth. Is that person even eligible to vote?
To me the problem with the e-voting machines is that e-voting machine manufactures want to overcharge the public and use proprietary software.
On the issue of cost. I don't know if we have a real competitive bidding process or not.
On the issue of proprietary software. The public is paying for and using these machines, the code should be in the public domain. Period, Period, Period.
There is nothing magical about e-voting. As you point out "The machines are fairly low-tech (no Windoze !), reliable and cheap to produce." Too bad the concept of e-voting been blown out of proportion.
On the post: When Even The Simpsons Make Fun Of E-Voting Machines...
Wrong
On the post: When Even The Simpsons Make Fun Of E-Voting Machines...
Reading American Culture
On the post: Bailout Bill Stuffed With Pork Apparently More Palatable
Congress Has Been On it for 10+ Years
The AMT issue has once again popped with Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. However in this case it is hidden in the noise level. Evidently an AMT "patch" has been proposed. I assume that it is simply a temporary fix for show, I don't know the details.
My point, we have had a known tax issue for XX years, our politicians claim (smiling) before the media camera's how they are diligently working at solving the AMT problem. Clearly, since the issue has not been solved, they really have had no intention of solving it. Its all show and no substance. With this bailout, we are simply getting another temporary "patch", that does not really solve the problem. Another case of blowing hot air and "solving" a problem with smoke and mirrors. Well, at least I will save a bit when buying wooden arrow shafts!
Next >>