"But these free-to-air services have been phenomenal successes in Japan and Korea."
That's because Japanese and Korean workers sit on trains two hours per day on the way to and from work. In the US we drive and can't really watch TV on our phones during that time. (Although I'd guess some would try.)
Mobile TV is here. My Zen is filled with TV shows. As are my family's players. But that's not what Mobile TV proponents want.
They actually want us to turn on our portable devices and all simultaneously watch TV programing, including commercials, under the old broadcast paradigm.
Those days are long gone idiots. We're never going back to that. Ever. Even for a huge event such as the Super Bowl, because we'd watch that on our home TVs.
What was the most amazing invention of the last century? The transistor. The first patent regarding the transistor was filed in 1925. The second patent was filed in 1934. The third was in 1947.
However, the father of the transistor, William Shockley, the guy who actually got it to work and made it useful. The guy who rolled up his sleeves and actually made it commercially viable. The guy who actually laid the foundation for what is now called Silicon Valley... had absolutely no patent on it.
Exactly how did those patents help innovation when the true innovator, i.e., the guy who got it to work, was not "incentivized" by the patent system at all?
"Reducing the number of people who have access to my work is not the same as working on my behalf...."
Yeah, can you imagine that if back in the 70s that if you were caught recording TV shows on your VCR, you'd lose access to broadcast television? (If Jack Valenti had his way.)
Or if you were caught recording music off the radio onto cassettes, you'd lose access to the radio?
Or (this is the best one) you were caught dubbing your friends' cassette tapes, you'd lose access to your friends?
How does being banned from TV compel you to watch TV? How would being barred from radio make you want to buy new music? And how would being banned from your friends make you buy your own cassettes?
Banning people from the net clearly is not a solution because it does not give anyone a reason to buy.
Mike, someone has taken over your blog. He's talking about rights that don't exist in the law. He's talking against fair use and stuff. He's making me feel uncomfortable because suddenly I have feelings of empathy for twitterers. Help!
It's not merely pedantic to point out that infringement is completely different from theft. It's absolutely correct. Even our highest court agrees that infringement is not theft. Dowling V. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) Heck, why not call infringement "rape" or "murder", it makes about as much sense. To constantly refer to infringement as being even remotely synonymous with theft is simply retarded.
"Efficient infringement happens way too often."
How often is "too often"? What criteria are you using to set your high and low tolerances? Why is a cost/benefit analysis a bad method for determining a business course of action? Would you prefer taro cards? An Ouija board?
The really sad part is, even if Pat Choate is absolutely correct, that companies are "stealing" patents after conducting a cost benefit analysis, he's still wrong.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. Companies make decisions based upon cost benefit analyses all the fricken time
This guy is a fricken retard. Even when we assume he's right, he's still wrong.
The Hot News Doctrine might have made sense back 100 years ago. Back then it took about a day to print a newspaper. Thus, waiting a day to report something was a common occurrence. It's not like the newspaper could instantly spit out and publish an article about an earth quake currently happening.
However, nowadays with instant communications and the ability to instantly broadcast news, arguing that you cannot report on an earthquake currently happening is simply asinine. There is simply no basis to bar such facts from being reported.
"once he puts up paywalls Google and Microsoft will be forced to stop linking to his stuff"
Well, I think he's actually correct on this point. Once he puts his stories behind a paywall, no one will be index those pages, so they'll no longer appear in search results. Basically, if Murdoch puts all of his site behind a paywall, they'll disappear completely from the net.
I occasionally blog over at Dvorak.org. There was some screw up a while back which caused the entire site to be pulled from Google. Not only did our numbers drop dramatically, it was fricken weird not being on Google. It was like we didn't exist for a day or two.
"But, with both, you are dealing with public rights of way..."
The cable companies use the same right of way the phone companies use when they lay their cables. To me if a corporation gets to run something across private land without compensating the land owner and without the land owner being able to block it, the corporations should give up something. To me that something is common carrier status.
If phone companies survived for decades as common carriers, I don't see what harm would come from ISPs having the same legal restrictions. ISPs should be dumb pipes.
Normally I'd agree with you Mike. Why would people suddenly start paying to do on an iPad what they can get for free on a PC?
Remember when email was new and cool and when we first could change the sound to inform us of new emails? We never would have paid for that.
But yet on cell phones, ringtones is a huge business. People pay tons of money for it.
Remember back in the 90s when everyone was chatting on ICQ for free? We never would have paid for it.
But now people are running up thousands of dollars of bills per month texting on their phones. What the frick?!
I'm not saying that people will pay to view content on their iPads. But if they do, I won't be shocked at all. Perplexed? Yes. Disgusted? Yes. A little annoyed at the sheep-like mentality most people have? Sure. But shocked? Absolutely not.
On the post: Technology Isn't What's Holding Mobile TV Back
Re: Re: Free is a powerful price
Interesting.
On the post: Technology Isn't What's Holding Mobile TV Back
Re: Free is a powerful price
That's because Japanese and Korean workers sit on trains two hours per day on the way to and from work. In the US we drive and can't really watch TV on our phones during that time. (Although I'd guess some would try.)
On the post: Technology Isn't What's Holding Mobile TV Back
Re:
On the post: Technology Isn't What's Holding Mobile TV Back
They actually want us to turn on our portable devices and all simultaneously watch TV programing, including commercials, under the old broadcast paradigm.
Those days are long gone idiots. We're never going back to that. Ever. Even for a huge event such as the Super Bowl, because we'd watch that on our home TVs.
On the post: IBM Helps Florida Predict Just How Delinquent Your Child's Going To Be
Re:
Truly innocent people have nothing to be nervous about.
On the post: IBM Helps Florida Predict Just How Delinquent Your Child's Going To Be
Which was the best part of the movie
"IBM has this to say about the new system -- which was an upgrade from Excel:"
If that's true, it's both hilarious and depressing.
On the post: What If The Very Theory That Underlies Why We Need Patents Is Wrong?
Re: Re:
Damn, I hate when a great idea is destroyed by the truth!
On the post: What If The Very Theory That Underlies Why We Need Patents Is Wrong?
What was the most amazing invention of the last century? The transistor. The first patent regarding the transistor was filed in 1925. The second patent was filed in 1934. The third was in 1947.
However, the father of the transistor, William Shockley, the guy who actually got it to work and made it useful. The guy who rolled up his sleeves and actually made it commercially viable. The guy who actually laid the foundation for what is now called Silicon Valley... had absolutely no patent on it.
Exactly how did those patents help innovation when the true innovator, i.e., the guy who got it to work, was not "incentivized" by the patent system at all?
On the post: UK Comedy Writer Takes The Digital Economy Bill Seriously... As A Threat To His Livelihood
Yeah, can you imagine that if back in the 70s that if you were caught recording TV shows on your VCR, you'd lose access to broadcast television? (If Jack Valenti had his way.)
Or if you were caught recording music off the radio onto cassettes, you'd lose access to the radio?
Or (this is the best one) you were caught dubbing your friends' cassette tapes, you'd lose access to your friends?
How does being banned from TV compel you to watch TV? How would being barred from radio make you want to buy new music? And how would being banned from your friends make you buy your own cassettes?
Banning people from the net clearly is not a solution because it does not give anyone a reason to buy.
On the post: One Reason Companies Don't Do 'Free': They're Scared Of Pissing Off Those Who Bought?
On the post: How To Piss People Off: Publish A Book Using Their Tweets Without Asking Them First
On the post: Economist Assumes That The Problem Is 'Thieves' Rather Than Bad Patent Laws
Re:
It's not merely pedantic to point out that infringement is completely different from theft. It's absolutely correct. Even our highest court agrees that infringement is not theft. Dowling V. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) Heck, why not call infringement "rape" or "murder", it makes about as much sense. To constantly refer to infringement as being even remotely synonymous with theft is simply retarded.
"Efficient infringement happens way too often."
How often is "too often"? What criteria are you using to set your high and low tolerances? Why is a cost/benefit analysis a bad method for determining a business course of action? Would you prefer taro cards? An Ouija board?
On the post: Economist Assumes That The Problem Is 'Thieves' Rather Than Bad Patent Laws
There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. Companies make decisions based upon cost benefit analyses all the fricken time
This guy is a fricken retard. Even when we assume he's right, he's still wrong.
On the post: CNN Dusts Off Ancient Moral Panic Over Out Of Print Game That Was Banned A While Back
A news agency has five possibilities to get stories.
1. Find stories through research. (Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein)
2. Find stories already published. (Huffington Post)
3. Create situations which will give rise to stories. (Dateline's pedophile pieces.)
4. Make up stories. (Jayson Blair)
5. And last, but not least... dig up old stories and present them as new.
On the post: Japanese Video Game Guru Says Console Days Are Numbered
My son recently asked me, "Why can't you play 360 games on the PS3? Wouldn't it be easier to have one console instead of three?"
He's right, but unfortunately profits would be interfered with.
On the post: Newspapers Pushing For Hot News Doctrine May Find It Comes Back To Bite Them
However, nowadays with instant communications and the ability to instantly broadcast news, arguing that you cannot report on an earthquake currently happening is simply asinine. There is simply no basis to bar such facts from being reported.
On the post: Rupert Murdoch Doesn't Recognize That There's Competition Online
Well, I think he's actually correct on this point. Once he puts his stories behind a paywall, no one will be index those pages, so they'll no longer appear in search results. Basically, if Murdoch puts all of his site behind a paywall, they'll disappear completely from the net.
I occasionally blog over at Dvorak.org. There was some screw up a while back which caused the entire site to be pulled from Google. Not only did our numbers drop dramatically, it was fricken weird not being on Google. It was like we didn't exist for a day or two.
On the post: Net Neutrality Battle Quickly Turns Into Political Food Fight
The cable companies use the same right of way the phone companies use when they lay their cables. To me if a corporation gets to run something across private land without compensating the land owner and without the land owner being able to block it, the corporations should give up something. To me that something is common carrier status.
On the post: Court Tells FCC It Has No Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality (And That's A Good Thing)
On the post: The Fool's Gold At The End Of The iPad Rainbow
Normally I'd agree with you Mike. Why would people suddenly start paying to do on an iPad what they can get for free on a PC?
Remember when email was new and cool and when we first could change the sound to inform us of new emails? We never would have paid for that.
But yet on cell phones, ringtones is a huge business. People pay tons of money for it.
Remember back in the 90s when everyone was chatting on ICQ for free? We never would have paid for it.
But now people are running up thousands of dollars of bills per month texting on their phones. What the frick?!
I'm not saying that people will pay to view content on their iPads. But if they do, I won't be shocked at all. Perplexed? Yes. Disgusted? Yes. A little annoyed at the sheep-like mentality most people have? Sure. But shocked? Absolutely not.
Next >>