It all equals a "lost sale" as far as I'm concerned. I've purchased laptops which included the "Microsoft tax" and a Windows OS because it was actually cheaper than a preloaded Linux or "no OS" device. Not anymore.
Because what I'm getting from your article is actually more "Let the hand of the free market decide", and to me that's just naive at that point...
Personally, I pretty much despise Microsoft and their products, (I think this more of because of my anti-authority issues than any thing else, though) but I still have never agreed with the anti-trust actions against them, with a couple of caveats:
- Internet Explorer should have never been intregrated so far into the OS that removing it complete became impossible.
- UEFI secure boot protocol should be curtailed. When I purchase hardware, it's mine to load whatever OS I desire. Full Stop.
Not me. I read through that article. His arguments boil down to three basic themes:
1) "Google promotes their products higher on the platforms that they created and maintain."
Does Clemons also feel that General Motors should be forced to display Hyundais and Toyotas in their dealership showrooms? If not, why?
2) "Google's Android platform is really popular."
Clemons seems to think that Google and Android are some kind of "walled garden" type of thing, which isn't true. Android is pretty much the most open mobile platform available. Compared to Apple's continued "walled garden" philosophy, Android is like Montana and Apple is a backyard greenhouse with armed guards.
3) "Google is really successful and has the audacity to maintain that level of success by continuing to compete in the marketplace."
Where is it written that a hugely successful company MUST stop competing because it left it's competitors in the dust?
...many of whom either don't turn a profit, or make their money on advertising.
Wait. How are those "bad" things?
Thousands of musicians never turn a profit either, are they "bad" too? Thousands of musicians license their music for TV and radio ads, are they "bad" also?
Wrong. GOT is simply very popular. There is one large fanbase. It's just that some douches steal it.
The show's director and Time Warner's CEO state that they "benefited" from the piracy of GOT:
Observers, including series director David Petrarca and Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said illegal downloads did not hurt the series' prospects, as it benefited from the resulting "buzz" and social commentary, while the high rates of piracy did not significantly translate to lost subscriptions. Source
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Yes, your obscure claims eliminate facts shown by software providers much larger than you. OK.
Care to share these so-called "facts"?
If you bring up Microsoft, I'll have a good laugh. Their world market share is due in part to illegal sharing. Didn't they also purchase Minecraft? A product made phenomenally popular because of Notch's policy of not getting all upset about pirated copies?
For example, you can't copy my novel until my novel exists. The moment it does exist, you still can't copy it. You never could before I wrote it, and you still can't once I do write it. I don't see how any rights have been taken away.
The moment that the work exists isn't the important moment. The moment it's shared with others is the pivotal moment.
Prior to the existence of copyright, once you told your story to another person they had a natural right to re-tell it or embellish it. Copyright restricts that natural right. I'm not sure why you deny that.
Also, since you argue that the "laborer’s moral claim is superior to the claim of someone else who didn’t labor to create the thing", do you apply that to physical products? If I spend two weeks creating a chair and sell it to you, do I have a moral claim to restrict whomever I wish from sitting upon that chair? It was my sweat of the brow that created the chair, so I have a "superior claim", right?
I don't agree that it takes anything away from the public since the work did not exist until the author created it.
Why would copyright exist in the first place, then?
If, as you say, nothing is taken from the public, why do we need copyright laws that restrict the natural tendencies of humans to copy, embellish, reuse and re-purpose stories?
If you don't want to take THEIR deal on their terms, you've no moral basis for forcing it on them.
You say that as if the restriction on copying other's ideas and stories is the natural state of human culture, instead of something that has only existed for the last few hundred years or so.
One could argue that copyright itself is immoral, since once an idea or story is shared it goes against our very nature to restrict our ability to copy it and build upon it and share it with others.
Re: The evidence is that intellectual property is THEIR STUFF, not yours.
No need to repeat yourself Blue. We all picked up on your attempt to stereotype and marginalize anyone's argument who you deem to be a "pirate" up there.
I bet this month Lemley gets to eat in the Google cafeteria for free!
Apparently there is also another group that relies on neither facts nor faith, but instead relies on misguided delusions that everything bad in the world is Google's fault.
The data is inconclusive, but it's faith to support IP and science to resist it? That makes little sense.
Seriously, that's what you got from this article?
I didn't see it as slamming the Pro-IP crowd any more so than the anti-IP crowd. Both sides seem to have those who base their arguments on faith instead of facts.
One of the reasons I was drawn to Techdirt in the first place is that Mike tends to make his arguments and observations from empirical data when possible, sometimes even when that data goes against his views. Other IP blogs I've read would never do that, usually because they are too busy trying to pull the emotional heart strings of their readers to actually deal with facts.
It's a complete conflict of interest for a government to "decide" what is and isn't constitutional.
I'm curious as to who you would have decide constitutional issues in instead of SCOTUS? A jury? A popularity poll? Law scholars? Space aliens? A flip of a coin?
Re: Hmm. Doing what they know, unable to think of more...
Too funny Blue.
Actually the best change around here in the last year or so was when you stopped spamming the comment sections with your "holier-than-thou" rants and half-baked notions. We've had some real nice adult discussions since then.
That's not a solution. It wouldn't have changed anything.
I think it would have.
Imagine Google's Content ID system built upon verifiable ownership, as opposed to unsubstantiated claims of ownership. It would be quite a bit different.
On the post: EU Official Says It's Time To Harm American Internet Companies Via Regulations... Hours Later Antitrust Charges Against Google Announced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
On the post: EU Official Says It's Time To Harm American Internet Companies Via Regulations... Hours Later Antitrust Charges Against Google Announced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Personally, I pretty much despise Microsoft and their products, (I think this more of because of my anti-authority issues than any thing else, though) but I still have never agreed with the anti-trust actions against them, with a couple of caveats:
- Internet Explorer should have never been intregrated so far into the OS that removing it complete became impossible.
- UEFI secure boot protocol should be curtailed. When I purchase hardware, it's mine to load whatever OS I desire. Full Stop.
On the post: Homeland Security Will Finally Admit To Banned Flyers That They're On The No Fly List
Re: Monitor Your children
On the post: EU Official Says It's Time To Harm American Internet Companies Via Regulations... Hours Later Antitrust Charges Against Google Announced
Re: Why go after Google
Not me. I read through that article. His arguments boil down to three basic themes:
1) "Google promotes their products higher on the platforms that they created and maintain."
Does Clemons also feel that General Motors should be forced to display Hyundais and Toyotas in their dealership showrooms? If not, why?
2) "Google's Android platform is really popular."
Clemons seems to think that Google and Android are some kind of "walled garden" type of thing, which isn't true. Android is pretty much the most open mobile platform available. Compared to Apple's continued "walled garden" philosophy, Android is like Montana and Apple is a backyard greenhouse with armed guards.
3) "Google is really successful and has the audacity to maintain that level of success by continuing to compete in the marketplace."
Where is it written that a hugely successful company MUST stop competing because it left it's competitors in the dust?
On the post: No, Getting Your Music Played On The Radio Is Nothing Like Slavery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait. How are those "bad" things?
Thousands of musicians never turn a profit either, are they "bad" too? Thousands of musicians license their music for TV and radio ads, are they "bad" also?
Just trying to figure out your logic here.
On the post: No, Getting Your Music Played On The Radio Is Nothing Like Slavery
Re: Re: Re: Promotion
The show's director and Time Warner's CEO state that they "benefited" from the piracy of GOT:
On the post: No, Getting Your Music Played On The Radio Is Nothing Like Slavery
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Care to share these so-called "facts"?
If you bring up Microsoft, I'll have a good laugh. Their world market share is due in part to illegal sharing. Didn't they also purchase Minecraft? A product made phenomenally popular because of Notch's policy of not getting all upset about pirated copies?
On the post: No, Getting Your Music Played On The Radio Is Nothing Like Slavery
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
How insulting. You insinuate that John's hard work is insignificant.
You should apologize for being an asshole, Blue.
On the post: No, Getting Your Music Played On The Radio Is Nothing Like Slavery
Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
https://vine.co/v/OQqxU7KFzKY
On the post: Copyrights & Patents Have Become A Religion; All Data Will Be Ignored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The moment that the work exists isn't the important moment. The moment it's shared with others is the pivotal moment.
Prior to the existence of copyright, once you told your story to another person they had a natural right to re-tell it or embellish it. Copyright restricts that natural right. I'm not sure why you deny that.
Also, since you argue that the "laborer’s moral claim is superior to the claim of someone else who didn’t labor to create the thing", do you apply that to physical products? If I spend two weeks creating a chair and sell it to you, do I have a moral claim to restrict whomever I wish from sitting upon that chair? It was my sweat of the brow that created the chair, so I have a "superior claim", right?
On the post: Copyrights & Patents Have Become A Religion; All Data Will Be Ignored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would copyright exist in the first place, then?
If, as you say, nothing is taken from the public, why do we need copyright laws that restrict the natural tendencies of humans to copy, embellish, reuse and re-purpose stories?
On the post: Copyrights & Patents Have Become A Religion; All Data Will Be Ignored
Re: Then the zealots dig in.
You say that as if the restriction on copying other's ideas and stories is the natural state of human culture, instead of something that has only existed for the last few hundred years or so.
One could argue that copyright itself is immoral, since once an idea or story is shared it goes against our very nature to restrict our ability to copy it and build upon it and share it with others.
On the post: Copyrights & Patents Have Become A Religion; All Data Will Be Ignored
Re: The evidence is that intellectual property is THEIR STUFF, not yours.
On the post: Copyrights & Patents Have Become A Religion; All Data Will Be Ignored
Re:
Apparently there is also another group that relies on neither facts nor faith, but instead relies on misguided delusions that everything bad in the world is Google's fault.
On the post: Copyrights & Patents Have Become A Religion; All Data Will Be Ignored
Re: Re: Re:The evidence is that intellectual property is THEIR STUFF, not yours.
The grownups here are discussing what IP policy is based upon and how it affects our society. Not sure what you are discussing.
On the post: Copyrights & Patents Have Become A Religion; All Data Will Be Ignored
Re:
Seriously, that's what you got from this article?
I didn't see it as slamming the Pro-IP crowd any more so than the anti-IP crowd. Both sides seem to have those who base their arguments on faith instead of facts.
One of the reasons I was drawn to Techdirt in the first place is that Mike tends to make his arguments and observations from empirical data when possible, sometimes even when that data goes against his views. Other IP blogs I've read would never do that, usually because they are too busy trying to pull the emotional heart strings of their readers to actually deal with facts.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Lifetime GPS Monitoring Of Sex Offenders May Be Unconstitutional
Re:
I'm curious as to who you would have decide constitutional issues in instead of SCOTUS? A jury? A popularity poll? Law scholars? Space aliens? A flip of a coin?
On the post: Why Don't Surveillance State Defenders Seem To Care That The Programs They Love Don't Work?
Re: Hmm. Doing what they know, unable to think of more...
Actually the best change around here in the last year or so was when you stopped spamming the comment sections with your "holier-than-thou" rants and half-baked notions. We've had some real nice adult discussions since then.
On the post: Two Court Rulings Completely Disagree With Each Other Over Whether Websites Need To Comply With Americans With Disabilities Act
Re: Re: Re: Bakeries and websites
"If a man says something in the forest and his wife isn't around to hear it, is he still wrong?"
On the post: Once Again, Political Speech Is Silenced By Copyright/ContentID
Re: Re: Re:
I think it would have.
Imagine Google's Content ID system built upon verifiable ownership, as opposed to unsubstantiated claims of ownership. It would be quite a bit different.
Next >>