aren't like normal budgets. $80 million (40 tons at $1000/pound) is cheap, really, and pays off by avoiding even one lost satellite. The downside is that EVERY low-earth satellite would be slowed by this debris, leading to shorter lifespans for all low earth satellites. That's because fuel is needed to keep the satellite from slowing too much, and running out of fuel is often the life-limiting factor for satellites. It might be interesting as a 1-off, since there's tons (literally) of uncontrolled space debris largely from the early years of space programs when there was less concern about junk.
If Verizon & others were in a true competitive market, then undoubtedly failing to invest in their network would spell their doom. Alas, at best it's a duopoly. Verizon can charge what they like and dare members to quit. Even with 2 "competitors" (who are now teaming up on related initiatives), there is seldom true competition.
In a monopolistic market, why should Verizon spend money to upgrade their network when they can charge virtually the same amount of money to the same number of people either way? Especially if Comcast & the other cablecos follow suit. And since dozens of corrupt state legislatures have forbid municipal broadband, there are no further threats with the full barrel of regulatory capture.
So Moffett's advice, if heeded, stands a fair chance of being more profitable for Verizon in the long run. With control of both the infrastructure and the government, Verizon and others have little incentive to improve their services. It's a failure of government that we've allowed such a situation to pass.
The NY Times should be embarrassed to publish such poorly written tripe. There's the undercurrent of some larger point, but Mr. Wu fails to directly come out and say what he wishes--- he wants the government to run search engines through legislative coercion. Of course, he can't say that, because citizens would rightly recognize such a position as wholly insane. But the NY Times shouldn't publish garbage like this without it, allowing such a massive platform to someone who so deviously attempts to hide his true agenda.
Absolutely agree. Whereas wholesale looting is EXACTLY like creating a new copy. Which is why all religious, political and moral systems have always treated those acts exactly the same.
Yes, just like when a 5 year old boy copies the drawing made by a 5 year old girl in his Kindergarten class it's stealing. That's why we send all Kindergarten kids to jail.
Just went on an extended rant upon seeing this posted elsewhere. Clicked over to Techdirt and BOOM, top story. I'll share it here.
-----------------------------
He lost me at,
I would suggest to you that, like so many other policies in our society, it is up to us individually to put pressure on our governments and private corporations to act ethically and fairly when it comes to artists rights.
And here's the fundamental flaw,
Rather than using our morality and principles to guide us through technological change, there are those asking us to change our morality and principles to fit the technological change–if a machine can do something, it ought to be done.
There is nothing innately "immoral" about sharing music. Or copying books, paintings or anything else. It was monkly work for centuries. 1000 years ago the concept of "stealing" a song simply didn't exist. Monks were not immoral for copying books-- after creating their copy, the original still existed! It was NEVER immoral. It isn't immoral. It's simply illegal.
Now, reproduction costs have gone from being measured in weeks of labor to seconds. Costs have dropped from thousands to hundreds to almost nothing. Production costs have been on a similar trajectory... recording an album required a record label with a million dollar studio in the 1960s. Now? I think you could pull it off for $10K.
The law has ALWAYS adjusted to reflect advances in technology, even if the underlying morality was the same. Why should today be different?
The fundamental shift in principals and morality is about who gets to control and exploit the work of an artist. The accepted norm for hudreds of years of western civilization is the artist exclusively has the right to exploit and control his/her work for a period of time. (Since the works that are are almost invariably the subject of these discussions are popular culture of one type or another, the duration of the copyright term is pretty much irrelevant for an ethical discussion.)
Wow, where to begin? The artists rights to control his/her work has always been usurped by his/her benefactor. Record labels own the copyright, not the artists. Ditto publishers. Only recently have artists (writers, photographers, musicians) on a mass scale been able to affordably produce & distribute their own work profitably to a mass audience. What a revolution! For the first time, artists are in control! The record labels want to put that genie back into the bottle, and have viciously attacked every new distribution method to arise for the past century plus. The player piano would destroy live music! The phonograph would surely be its end! Radio will be the end of it! Home taping is killing music! MP3 players are illegal and I'll sue anyone that makes one! Music lockers must be stopped (unless they can afford to hire lawyers)! Megaupload is a pirate's den, even (especially?) if there are musicians earning money through its services. Bit Torrent! The Pirate Bay!
Big Music's answer to everything is to enlist the government in a crusade to preserve their current business model. And movies do the same thing, witness TV, VCRs and YouTube, all of which combined provide far more than half of Hollywood revenues.
Now is just about the FIRST time the artist is in control, he can produce the music he wants, and distributes it how he wants. He doesn't need the record labels anymore... and that scares the crap out of record labels and their massive legacy costs.
Oh man, it gets worse (better)!
They are the venture capitalists that raise money for these sites. They are the hardware makers that sell racks of servers to these companies. And so on and so on.
that's it! The entire world must adapt their business practices so that we don't have to change our business models as the technology around us massively advances. The sheer arrogance of such a statement! It's mind boggling.
I knew it would get to this.
So in this neighborhood people simply loot all the products from the shelves of the record store.
Nope. Nope. Nope. Making a duplicate copy while leaving the original untouched and unchanged is in no way equivalent to taking a physical good that requires considerable expense to replace.
A better analogy? Little Johnny makes a drawing in his Kindergarten class. Little Marie sees Johnny's drawing and draws the same thing. If you were Marie's teacher, what would you do?
1) Praise Marie for making such a great drawing;
2) Scold Marie for committing copyright infringement, brand her a filthy pirate and suggest to Johnny's parents that they sue Marie's parents for $150,000 per infraction.
If you answered (2), congratulations, you have a future working for the RIAA!
The internet is full of stories from artists detailing just how little they receive from Spotify.
Which is, of course, dwarfed by the number of musicians (excluding songwriters) who have received more than $0 from radio stations. Heck, record labels PAY the radio stations to play their music! So what's his point?
You could also write your Congressman and Senator and suggest they come up with some way to divert the flow of advertising money back to the artists.
Aye, there's the crux. We need to enlist the government to support our industry since the legacy players refuse to modify their business model to adapt to changing market conditions & technology.
Definitely good news, even if 5 years overdue (c.v. Michael Crook v. Thomas Hawk). It is good for Yahoo!/Flickr to acknowledge their mistake & correct it. Makes me more confident that my photos won't be arbitrarily deleted.
Just on the one point, about litigation replacing competition. Problem is, there was no real competition in set-top DVRs--- the monopoly cable provider would just pick a vendor, rarely choosing the best option. TiVo was, by all accounts, far superior to all other DVRs and only Windows HME was close through most of the 2000s. But the playing field wasn't level, not even close. Still isn't.
I would've loved to have seen a real competition in DVRs without cable companies putting their thumb on the scales. There wasn't. There isn't.
Monopoly made competition moot, and TiVo turned to litigation instead.
I think this will be the 3rd, 4th or 5th time the patents are challenged. So far all the software claims have been upheld, including in September 2010 review following Dish/Echostar's last challenge.
Just on the one point, about litigation replacing competition. Problem is, there was no real competition in set-top DVRs--- the monopoly cable provider would just pick a vendor, rarely choosing the best option. TiVo was, by all accounts, far superior to all other DVRs and only Windows HME was close through most of the 2000s. But the playing field wasn't level, not even close. Still isn't.
I would've loved to have seen a real competition in DVRs without cable companies putting their thumb on the scales. There wasn't. There isn't.
Monopoly made competition moot, and TiVo turned to litigation instead.
I think this will be the 3rd, 4th or 5th time the patents are challenged. So far all the software claims have been upheld, including in September 2010 review following Dish/Echostar's last challenge.
The New Math// A realistic method to calculate Real damages
Wrote this somewhere else. Guess it was all for nothing. :( But give it a read.
--------
I think the judge should use this as an opportunity to point out that assigning statutory damages is simply inappropriate for a case such as this, and should require the RIAA to base damages request upon actual damages.
So that's 480 million downloads... the service is rough hybrid between iTunes & Spotify, picking a geometric mean seems appropriate.
iTunes is $1/song. Spotify is about $0.003/song. The geometric average is SQRT($1 x $0.003) = $0.054/song. Multiply by 480 million downloads, that's $26 million dollars. Should leave the investors with nada, and establish a nice precedent whereby the damage per download has now been reduced by 99.999964%. I could live with that.
I may have engaged in a bit of hyperbole. But maybe not. I'm not claiming it's going to destroy the brand. It's more that I'd look at the options and weigh the choices differently. And saying it's harmful to the brand isn't the same as saying it's bad business, or uninteresting.
But a strong part of the Techdirt brand is the CWF+RTB thing, alongside giving away (or selling at low cost) zero margin products while making money on the scarce. This project is undoubtedly highlighting that it's not possible today for many authors-- that's not the part that hurts the brand.
What's damaged the brand to me is you've been (so far) unwilling to seek out a book that fits in the CWF+RTB mold, which suggests maybe you aren't practicing what you preach. Techdirt has been about embracing new business models, encouraging creatives to take chances, and you've in turn used your platform to promote artists & authors that have done so. But not this time. I think that's a net negative.
Now, maybe you can weigh all that and decide that you'd rather just choose books based on content alone and any brand diminishment is more than offset by gains in community engagement and personal interest. And maybe I'm just plain wrong about the brand being harmed. But I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand, either.
Appreciate your response here. I certainly am much more likely to comment when I have a counterviewpoint. Truth is, about 95% of my comments would be "megadittoes" but when I do have a different take I don't hesitate to share it, right or wrong.
Below the mark, here's the comment I left on The Hollywood Reporter. Was that wrong?
----------------------------
So true! So true! For 3 decades the MPAA has been spreading misinformation among their employees as they relentlessly ratcheted up IP laws to the point where 90% of the public correctly recognizes these laws as toothless, overreaching and immoral. I, for one, am glad that Ms. Moore is finally calling out the MPAA for its lies.
“What happened was a misinformation campaign. People were basically misled into contacting Congressmen with claims that were extraordinary. There was some genuine concern, but as for it being a genuine home grown grassroots up-from the-streets opposition, I beg to differ on that.”
even with excerpts of whole chapters when the $0 marginal cost eBooks are being offered for the high, high price of $17. Or $7 (!!!!) to rent it for 30 days.
Hopefully the authors at least ensure the book is made available to "loan" in electronic form via local libraries.
Maybe it's a nit, but every eBook so far has suffered from this same fatal flaw. Runs counter to all the CWF+RTB arguments made by The Masnick, treats the abundant as scarce and makes a tiny attempt to sell the scarce. How am I supposed to take a Techdirt book club seriously when the business model of every book offered seems to have adopted the worst, most backward facing features of Big Publishing.
Give us $3 eBooks or give up the book club. The whole venture is harmful to the brand at this point.
Tragedy depicts the downfall of a noble hero or heroine, usually through some combination of hubris, fate, and the will of the gods. The tragic hero's powerful wish to achieve some goal inevitably encounters limits, usually those of human frailty (flaws in reason, hubris, society), the gods (through oracles, prophets, fate), or nature. Aristotle says that the tragic hero should have a flaw and/or make some mistake (hamartia). The hero need not die at the end, but he / she must undergo a change in fortune. In addition, the tragic hero may achieve some revelation or recognition (anagnorisis--"knowing again" or "knowing back" or "knowing throughout" ) about human fate, destiny, and the will of the gods. Aristotle quite nicely terms this sort of recognition "a change from ignorance to awareness of a bond of love or hate."
That's the real tragedy, in the Greek sense. All these lawsuits are wasting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on lawyers. While at the same time crippling their business operations in order to facilitate the sue-first strategy of EMI & other RIAA members.
I can't keep track of who's been bought & who's gone bust. But in the end, it won't be "piracy" that ends the reign of Big Music, rather it will be their own courtroom-centric business strategy.
On the post: DailyDirt: Who's Going To Clean Up All The Space Junk?
Space budgets...
On the post: Canada's Own Justice Department Worried That Digital Locks Provision Is Not Constitutional
But... but ...
On the post: The Short-Sightedness Of Wall Street When It Comes To Broadband Infrastructure Investment
The benefits of the monopoly
In a monopolistic market, why should Verizon spend money to upgrade their network when they can charge virtually the same amount of money to the same number of people either way? Especially if Comcast & the other cablecos follow suit. And since dozens of corrupt state legislatures have forbid municipal broadband, there are no further threats with the full barrel of regulatory capture.
So Moffett's advice, if heeded, stands a fair chance of being more profitable for Verizon in the long run. With control of both the infrastructure and the government, Verizon and others have little incentive to improve their services. It's a failure of government that we've allowed such a situation to pass.
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
FFS
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: I just went on my own Masnickian rant
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
I just went on my own Masnickian rant
-----------------------------
He lost me at,
And here's the fundamental flaw,
There is nothing innately "immoral" about sharing music. Or copying books, paintings or anything else. It was monkly work for centuries. 1000 years ago the concept of "stealing" a song simply didn't exist. Monks were not immoral for copying books-- after creating their copy, the original still existed! It was NEVER immoral. It isn't immoral. It's simply illegal.
Now, reproduction costs have gone from being measured in weeks of labor to seconds. Costs have dropped from thousands to hundreds to almost nothing. Production costs have been on a similar trajectory... recording an album required a record label with a million dollar studio in the 1960s. Now? I think you could pull it off for $10K.
The law has ALWAYS adjusted to reflect advances in technology, even if the underlying morality was the same. Why should today be different?
Wow, where to begin? The artists rights to control his/her work has always been usurped by his/her benefactor. Record labels own the copyright, not the artists. Ditto publishers. Only recently have artists (writers, photographers, musicians) on a mass scale been able to affordably produce & distribute their own work profitably to a mass audience. What a revolution! For the first time, artists are in control! The record labels want to put that genie back into the bottle, and have viciously attacked every new distribution method to arise for the past century plus. The player piano would destroy live music! The phonograph would surely be its end! Radio will be the end of it! Home taping is killing music! MP3 players are illegal and I'll sue anyone that makes one! Music lockers must be stopped (unless they can afford to hire lawyers)! Megaupload is a pirate's den, even (especially?) if there are musicians earning money through its services. Bit Torrent! The Pirate Bay!
Big Music's answer to everything is to enlist the government in a crusade to preserve their current business model. And movies do the same thing, witness TV, VCRs and YouTube, all of which combined provide far more than half of Hollywood revenues.
Now is just about the FIRST time the artist is in control, he can produce the music he wants, and distributes it how he wants. He doesn't need the record labels anymore... and that scares the crap out of record labels and their massive legacy costs.
Oh man, it gets worse (better)!
that's it! The entire world must adapt their business practices so that we don't have to change our business models as the technology around us massively advances. The sheer arrogance of such a statement! It's mind boggling.
I knew it would get to this.
Nope. Nope. Nope. Making a duplicate copy while leaving the original untouched and unchanged is in no way equivalent to taking a physical good that requires considerable expense to replace.
A better analogy? Little Johnny makes a drawing in his Kindergarten class. Little Marie sees Johnny's drawing and draws the same thing. If you were Marie's teacher, what would you do?
1) Praise Marie for making such a great drawing;
2) Scold Marie for committing copyright infringement, brand her a filthy pirate and suggest to Johnny's parents that they sue Marie's parents for $150,000 per infraction.
If you answered (2), congratulations, you have a future working for the RIAA!
Which is, of course, dwarfed by the number of musicians (excluding songwriters) who have received more than $0 from radio stations. Heck, record labels PAY the radio stations to play their music! So what's his point?
Aye, there's the crux. We need to enlist the government to support our industry since the legacy players refuse to modify their business model to adapt to changing market conditions & technology.
On the post: Flickr Finally Realizes That Not All DMCA Takedowns Are Legit
Baby steps to the door, baby steps to the door...
On the post: The EU Telco Plan To Have The UN 'Tax & Track' Internet Usage Goes Against Fundamental Internet Principles
Dear Europe,
We're sorry you suck at the internet. Please stop trying to screw it up for the rest of us.
Thank you.
On the post: Cisco Has Enough Of TiVo Patent Claims, Files To Invalidate TiVo Patents
I'm a doofus
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100608/1521449744.shtml#c212
Just on the one point, about litigation replacing competition. Problem is, there was no real competition in set-top DVRs--- the monopoly cable provider would just pick a vendor, rarely choosing the best option. TiVo was, by all accounts, far superior to all other DVRs and only Windows HME was close through most of the 2000s. But the playing field wasn't level, not even close. Still isn't.
I would've loved to have seen a real competition in DVRs without cable companies putting their thumb on the scales. There wasn't. There isn't.
Monopoly made competition moot, and TiVo turned to litigation instead.
--------------
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39482986/USPTO-s-Final-Examination-TiVo
I think this will be the 3rd, 4th or 5th time the patents are challenged. So far all the software claims have been upheld, including in September 2010 review following Dish/Echostar's last challenge.
---------------
Here's a story about the same. http://gigaom.com/video/u-s-patent-office-backs-tivo-in-dishechostar-fight/
On the post: TiVo's 'Big Win' Over Dish On Patents Looking Less And Less Solid, As Patent Office Rejects Patent Claims
Re: Patents were confirmed. Again.
On the post: TiVo's 'Big Win' Over Dish On Patents Looking Less And Less Solid, As Patent Office Rejects Patent Claims
Re: Re: Re: Re: A smile on mike's face
I would've loved to have seen a real competition in DVRs without cable companies putting their thumb on the scales. There wasn't. There isn't.
Monopoly made competition moot, and TiVo turned to litigation instead.
On the post: TiVo's 'Big Win' Over Dish On Patents Looking Less And Less Solid, As Patent Office Rejects Patent Claims
Patents were confirmed. Again.
I think this will be the 3rd, 4th or 5th time the patents are challenged. So far all the software claims have been upheld, including in September 2010 review following Dish/Echostar's last challenge.
On the post: No, The RIAA Is Not Asking For $72 Trillion From Limewire (Bad Reporters, Bad)
The New Math// A realistic method to calculate Real damages
--------
I think the judge should use this as an opportunity to point out that assigning statutory damages is simply inappropriate for a case such as this, and should require the RIAA to base damages request upon actual damages.
So that's 480 million downloads... the service is rough hybrid between iTunes & Spotify, picking a geometric mean seems appropriate.
iTunes is $1/song. Spotify is about $0.003/song. The geometric average is SQRT($1 x $0.003) = $0.054/song. Multiply by 480 million downloads, that's $26 million dollars. Should leave the investors with nada, and establish a nice precedent whereby the damage per download has now been reduced by 99.999964%. I could live with that.
On the post: How Does Fair Use Fit Into The Critique Of Copyright?
Re: Re: The Book club isn't going to fly...
But a strong part of the Techdirt brand is the CWF+RTB thing, alongside giving away (or selling at low cost) zero margin products while making money on the scarce. This project is undoubtedly highlighting that it's not possible today for many authors-- that's not the part that hurts the brand.
What's damaged the brand to me is you've been (so far) unwilling to seek out a book that fits in the CWF+RTB mold, which suggests maybe you aren't practicing what you preach. Techdirt has been about embracing new business models, encouraging creatives to take chances, and you've in turn used your platform to promote artists & authors that have done so. But not this time. I think that's a net negative.
Now, maybe you can weigh all that and decide that you'd rather just choose books based on content alone and any brand diminishment is more than offset by gains in community engagement and personal interest. And maybe I'm just plain wrong about the brand being harmed. But I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand, either.
Appreciate your response here. I certainly am much more likely to comment when I have a counterviewpoint. Truth is, about 95% of my comments would be "megadittoes" but when I do have a different take I don't hesitate to share it, right or wrong.
On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA
She finally saw the light!
----------------------------
So true! So true! For 3 decades the MPAA has been spreading misinformation among their employees as they relentlessly ratcheted up IP laws to the point where 90% of the public correctly recognizes these laws as toothless, overreaching and immoral. I, for one, am glad that Ms. Moore is finally calling out the MPAA for its lies.
“What happened was a misinformation campaign. People were basically misled into contacting Congressmen with claims that were extraordinary. There was some genuine concern, but as for it being a genuine home grown grassroots up-from the-streets opposition, I beg to differ on that.”
On the post: Why Hollywood Is Doomed: It Takes Sensible Advice Like 'Make Good Movies' And Turns It Into A Screed About Piracy
But...
On the post: How Does Fair Use Fit Into The Critique Of Copyright?
The Book club isn't going to fly...
Hopefully the authors at least ensure the book is made available to "loan" in electronic form via local libraries.
Maybe it's a nit, but every eBook so far has suffered from this same fatal flaw. Runs counter to all the CWF+RTB arguments made by The Masnick, treats the abundant as scarce and makes a tiny attempt to sell the scarce. How am I supposed to take a Techdirt book club seriously when the business model of every book offered seems to have adopted the worst, most backward facing features of Big Publishing.
Give us $3 eBooks or give up the book club. The whole venture is harmful to the brand at this point.
On the post: EMI Adds Insult To Bankruptcy In Misguided Gloating Over MP3Tunes Demise
Re: Re: EMI suing itself into bankruptcy
On the post: EMI Adds Insult To Bankruptcy In Misguided Gloating Over MP3Tunes Demise
EMI suing itself into bankruptcy
I can't keep track of who's been bought & who's gone bust. But in the end, it won't be "piracy" that ends the reign of Big Music, rather it will be their own courtroom-centric business strategy.
Next >>