"Search Neutrality" is obviously a poor choice of words. I think what people really want is Search Transparency. Yes, I want search results which are "biased" toward relevancy (rather than just returning random results that match the search terms), but I would also like some assurance that the "relevancy" of the results isn't being influenced by things like how much an advertiser pays.
Metered billing makes sense for iPhone use, where each additional byte has a relatively high cost (ATT's mobile network is stretched to the limit in many areas, requiring build out of addition infrastructure). On the other hand, metered billing for wired broadband doesn't makes sense because once a home is wired up, each additional byte has an extremely low cost (the network is not running anywhere near capacity).
My house is visible on Google Earth, therefore I'm going to rename it Google House and sell Google branded merchandise. Do you think I'll get in legal trouble?
Remember when Napster was forced to block certain search terms (like "Metalica")? People just started using pig latin to label their MP3s. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The soldier should offer his services as an expert witness in the trials of the downloaders. A jury would be hard pressed to award a huge damage claim to the producers who took advantage of a decorated veteran, and he gets the satisfaction of a little payback.
Honestly, I still don't see why there's so much concern about this merger
If you don't see why there's concern over a content producer being controlled by a distributor you need to study the history of the Hollywood studio system and the 1948 antitrust case that put an end to it. Comcast is clearly trying to create a walled-garden for cable content so that NBC content (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Syfy, Weather Channel, A&E, etc) is only (or preferentially) available on Comcast and not on other cable/satellite/internet providers.
It's hard to believe that anyone, in this day and age, could possibly still have a libel law that puts the burden on the accused to prove they didn't libel someone.
When you libel someone (eg. "Mike is a crook"), the accused is really the person being libeled, not the libeler. It should be up to the accuser (i.e. the potential libeler) to prove their accusations. If they can't prove them, they are guilty of libel.
I have to agree. This is not as case of third-party liability like Google being liable for "linking" to some slanderous website. In this case, the defendant knew what the content of the website was and actively promoted it with the intention of defaming the plaintiff.
Privacy is a level of trust between two individuals, not a byproduct of technology. If these two people did not agree on the conversation being private, then there should have been no expectation of such.
I didn't say there was an expectation of privacy because it was an email. I said there was an expectation of privacy because of the context of a job application process. If you are applying for a new job, would you like those details to get back to your current employer?
Also, just because someone sends an e-mail that says "this is confidential" at the bottom ... unless the receiver previously agrees to that condition before reading, it is in fact NOT confidential. The intention of the sender is great and all, but unless there are contracts and agreements, it's worthless.
It is true that those types of one-sided conditions are not legally binding, but any reasonably ethical person should voluntarily abide by them, especially a lawyer and even more especially in the context of a job application.
The CBC News websites do this also (though not quite as bad). When a story first breaks, it begins to collect comments. Over the course of several hours or days, the story gets rewritten as new facts come to light or details get corrected, but the original comments get carried along. You see early comments pointing out errors or omissions in the story and latter comments saying "read the article dummy" after it's been corrected.
Here on Techdirt, the authors generally reply to comments that offer corrections (even on typos) and tag the articles as being updated, but that is fairly rare among mainstream news sites.
as a side note, mr adams currently suffers from a speech disorder (related to stress, perhaps) that makes it impossible for him to give presentations.
Steven Hawking gave public presentations for many years with a disorder that is far more debilitating than Adams'. Basically, they rolled him on stage and he pressed the 'play' button on his computer; but the audience cheered at the end anyway. People pay good money to see over-the-hill musicians fumble through their decades-old hit songs. The CD sounds much better than the live concert and I get far more out of reading Hawking's book than hearing his 'speech', but that doesn't matter. It's not about the performance, it's about the experience. Performance can be copied, experience can't
There's no denying that the applicant was a huge asshole, but does that justify publishing a private email correspondence in a blog for public ridicule? Doesn't a job seeker have some reasonable expectation of privacy in the job application process? Is this how professionals (much less lawyers) behave? There is plenty of unethical behavior on both sides here (which does nothing to improve my opinion of lawyers in general).
"I mainly just wanted to stimulate discussion," he told me. "I didn't think the bill would be likely to pass,
This idiot should be billed for the tax dollars he wasted proposing a law he knew could not pass. There should be laws prohibiting 'nuisance legislation' like the ones for 'nuisance lawsuits' (although those don't work very well, at least it's a start).
This is civil law, not criminal law. If someone can be held to the terms of a contract they've never seen, then what's to stop me from creating a contract that says "anyone who downloads this file owes me $1000 and anyone who doesn't download this file owes me $2000."
True enough, but tipping the server is different from paying extra to the restaurant. I wonder how they are going to handle sales tax? Will you be taxed on what you actually pay or on the "suggested amount"?
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Transparency not Neutrality
On the post: AT&T Ditches Metered Billing Trials Without Telling Anyone
Simple Economics
On the post: Twilight Producers Sue To Stop Fashion Design Firm From Pointing Out That 'Bella' Wore Its Jacket
Google House
On the post: Is Forcing IsoHunt To Block Search Terms A First Amendment Violation?
Search term blocks are useless anyway
On the post: As Hurt Locker Producers Sue Thousands For File Sharing... They Claim Free Speech Rights To Copy Story Of Soldier
Expert witness
On the post: IFPI Complains That Canada's New Copyright Bill Not Draconian Enough
Re: Okay...
By any chance are you from Chicago? Congratulations. Hey maybe the Cubs will win the world series too? :-)
On the post: Congresswoman Suggests That Comcast Tried To Bribe Her To Support Merger
Study your history
If you don't see why there's concern over a content producer being controlled by a distributor you need to study the history of the Hollywood studio system and the 1948 antitrust case that put an end to it. Comcast is clearly trying to create a walled-garden for cable content so that NBC content (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Syfy, Weather Channel, A&E, etc) is only (or preferentially) available on Comcast and not on other cable/satellite/internet providers.
On the post: Is Copyright Holding Back Research?
Re: 404
On the post: New Libel Law Proposed In The UK; Gives ISPs Two Weeks To Respond
Which accused?
When you libel someone (eg. "Mike is a crook"), the accused is really the person being libeled, not the libeler. It should be up to the accuser (i.e. the potential libeler) to prove their accusations. If they can't prove them, they are guilty of libel.
On the post: Terrible Ruling: Forwarding A Link Can Be Considered Defamation
Re:
On the post: When Reporters Write A Story You Don't Like, Perhaps Don't Impersonate Them Asking For Sexual Encounters Or Nude Modeling Jobs
Re: Re: Expectation of privacy?
I didn't say there was an expectation of privacy because it was an email. I said there was an expectation of privacy because of the context of a job application process. If you are applying for a new job, would you like those details to get back to your current employer?
Also, just because someone sends an e-mail that says "this is confidential" at the bottom ... unless the receiver previously agrees to that condition before reading, it is in fact NOT confidential. The intention of the sender is great and all, but unless there are contracts and agreements, it's worthless.
It is true that those types of one-sided conditions are not legally binding, but any reasonably ethical person should voluntarily abide by them, especially a lawyer and even more especially in the context of a job application.
On the post: Guy Charged With Harassment For Sending Email Complaint To Senator Jim Bunning
Re: How about this?
On the post: Are Yahoo & The AP Manipulating Comments? Or Are They Just Really Bad At The Internet? [Updated]
CBC does this also
Here on Techdirt, the authors generally reply to comments that offer corrections (even on typos) and tag the articles as being updated, but that is fairly rare among mainstream news sites.
On the post: Scott Adams: The Economic Value Of Content Is Going To Zero, But Maybe It's Okay
Re: Re:
Steven Hawking gave public presentations for many years with a disorder that is far more debilitating than Adams'. Basically, they rolled him on stage and he pressed the 'play' button on his computer; but the audience cheered at the end anyway. People pay good money to see over-the-hill musicians fumble through their decades-old hit songs. The CD sounds much better than the live concert and I get far more out of reading Hawking's book than hearing his 'speech', but that doesn't matter. It's not about the performance, it's about the experience. Performance can be copied, experience can't
On the post: When Reporters Write A Story You Don't Like, Perhaps Don't Impersonate Them Asking For Sexual Encounters Or Nude Modeling Jobs
Expectation of privacy?
On the post: FTC Trying To Save Journalism Too... But It Seems To Think Journalism Is Old Newspapers
Catalog of bad ideas
- Redefining fair use to exclude search engines & aggregators
- Copyright protection for facts (i.e. "hot news")
- Allowing newspapers to collude in creating a common paywall and exempting them from the resulting antitrust action
- Statutory licensing of news
- Tax breaks for newspapers
- Government subsidies (i.e. Bailouts) paid for by:
- electronic device tax (i.e. iPad/Kindle tax)
- advertising tax (i.e. Google tax)
- spectrum/ISP taxes (i.e. everybody-else tax)
I only got up to page 23, I don't think I can read any more without gouging my eyes out.
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
Re: Re:
On the post: Michigan Politician Proposes Bill To Regulate Journalists So He Can Tell You Which Reporters To Trust
Nuisance Legislation
This idiot should be billed for the tax dollars he wasted proposing a law he knew could not pass. There should be laws prohibiting 'nuisance legislation' like the ones for 'nuisance lawsuits' (although those don't work very well, at least it's a start).
On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Explore Whether 'Innocent Infringement' Is A Legit Response In File Sharing Cases
Re: I withold comment till the court rules.
On the post: Panera Bread Testing The 'Pay What You Want' Model
Re:
Next >>