“We are disappointed that the movie industry is following in the footsteps of the music industry and trying to shut down advances in technology, rather than embracing changes that provide consumers with more value and flexibility for their purchases,” RealNetworks said in a statement Tuesday.
Companies may whine about regulation, but they seem to lack the "maturity" to act responsibly.
Lets see, the financial institutions were freed of some regulation and look what happened. They used "innovation" to create junk financial instruments, which are now bring down our economy.
Those opposed to network neutrality claim that regulation would hurt "innovation". Mike's post is another example of how companies can potentially abuse "innovation" simply for their own self interest and not to foster the societal economic growth they claim.
The original intent with Ebay was simply to connect a buyer and seller. Under this limited model, how the buyer and seller interacted would be considered irrelevant.
With the introduction of new services such as PayPal and the current change in the terms of service to require the use of PayPal, Ebay is becoming a type of "middle man". In a sense they are now defining how the buyer and seller are to conduct their business in a manner that allows Ebay to exact "toll-both" style revenues.
I stopped using Ebay several years ago. PayPal sucks. Though I use Amazon.com, I am nervous since they have "adopted" some of Ebay's onerous strategies to generate greater revenues. I would like to see Amazon.com return to its more "pure" original state.
Another example of the slow methodical march towards abolishing the concept of "sale". Eventually the consumer will have none of property rights associated with "buying" a product and will only be left with a liability.
When public funds are used to: collect data, develop technology, fund medical research, etc. The information should be in the public domain. Corporations should not be allowed to squelch the flow of information.
If Corporations want to provide value added benefits to the public for a fee they are "free" to do so. They simply should not be allowed to have monopoly control of the data or to place access to the data behind a pay wall.
The US Government does sell/lease resources such as oil and gas, and spectrum. Nevertheless, a case can be made that we get a greater economic return with a "free" patent than a patent that is "sold".
With a "free" patent the company that uses it can sell the product cheaper as the cost of the patent does not have to be included. Furthermore, companies using the patent can freely compete.
With a "sold" patent, the amortized cost of the patent has to be included in the price of the product. Additionally, the patent holder will have a monopoly on the use of that patent. From the perspective of a "free market" this would not be efficient.
Great post. Corporate spin beyond comprehension.==> “A major component of NASA Goddard’s Innovative Partnerships Program’s mission is to transfer NASA technology to the commercial marketplace, said IPP program office chief Nona Cheeks." I wonder if they attended Microsoft's English course on applying Orwell's Newspeak. Once these patents become privatized, we will have a rain of lawsuits claiming infringement.
Privatization of the radio spectrum is another issue that needs to be closely monitored. Those who advocate it, have yet to provide a clear picture of what that would mean. If the privatization of public patents serves as a model, I would envision a private spectrum where we would have to pay some spectrum owner a "toll" every time we turn on our microwave or use our WiFi connection.
To carry this to an even more absurd extreme, light bulbs emit RF energy. I would assume that someone would claim this segment of the RF spectrum and insist we pay a usage "toll" when we use our lights!
Public patents should remain in the public domain. Everyone benefits since there is no "toll booth" obstructing the use of the technology.
Actually I was a bit hasty. The LA Times article also wrote: "For example, will there be a way to adapt existing devices to the new system, providing backward compatibility?" Nevertheless, the article states that those in favor of DRM says that this is a way to give the consumer what they want. I hardly consider forcing the consumer to buy new equipment to view their content to be something that the consumer wants.
Piracy simply makes for a good sound byte that hides the fact that the content producers want to have more control over the consumer. Or to put this another way - they want to deprive you of your civil liberties in order to preserve their obsolete business models.
I like this 1994 quote from John Perry Barlow: "The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent."
The LA Times article also makes statements that fail to disclose the implications of a DRM technology on the user. For example the LA Times wrote: "But the proponents say it's really about giving customers what they want. If the initiative works as intended, it will remove the barriers to customers watching or listening to the content they acquire on any of their devices, wherever they happen to be. No one will notice the locks on a file until they try to IM it to a friend.". Should the DRM technology be implemented, does this mean that we will have to buy all new equipment to use content????
Good point. If customers of a product are dissatisfied they should be allowed to shout as loud as they can to stop a product from being purchased. The free market is speaking.
If this puts EA out of business, too bad, they made an incorrect choice.
Thanks for posting the reference to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. I have long been troubled about how Universities could privatize publicly funded research. I guess I now know. Publicly funded research belongs in the public domain.
NY Times wrote: "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 started out with the best of intentions. By clearing away the thicket of conflicting rules and regulations at various federal agencies, it set out to encourage universities to patent and license results of federally financed research. For the first time, academicians were able to profit personally from the market transfer of their work. For the first time, academia could be powered as much by a profit motive as by the psychic reward of new discovery."
What is distressing with the above quote??? The research is publicly funded and we provided the researcher a monetary incentive which is nice. But there is no mention of refunding the development expenses back to the government. This degenerates into another form of corporate welfare.
Wallach's post does not mention any pending legislation or existing legislation concerning consumer protection. It's silence on this issue and this TechDirt article demonstrate how the "squeaking wheel" gets all the attention. The entertainment industry by whining about piracy gets the attention of our government to pass legislation to protect their business interests even though this is supposed to be outside of government responsibility since we free market economy. However, the government (which is supposed to serve the citizens) is apparently unconcerned with fighting real crime which injures the consumer. Its unfortunate that our lawmakers have lost sight of the "public trust". We have a government of, by, and for the corporations.
Another DRM cost: LOST SALES. Negative publicity can cost companies sales. Again, do these lost sales offset the cost of piracy????? Less sales, less opportunity to make money and recover your investment.
Developing the DRM technologies costs money. Maintaining the DRM servers costs money. Live (maybe) tech support people cost money. Managing the fiasco costs money. So how many pirated copies must be "prevented" and "converted" to real sales in order to recover the cost of DRM??????????
I haven't a clue, but I believe the DRM efforts are a waste of time, money, and resources that could have been devoted to other useful endeavors.
Laws cannot be copyrighted. This is another example of inappropriately tossing the term "copyright" into the fan to see what sticks.
However, there is a twist to this issue: ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION.
I believe that governments are obligated to provide free access to any public documents, especially laws.
The ACCESS question, however, becomes important in the context where a museum holds works that are out of copyright. Museums (private and public) routinely charge you to view exhibits. In that context, I don't have a problem with paying for access.(A gray area, the museum says you can't photograph an out of copyright exhibit.)
The concept of copyright has been so misconstrued now, to justify any arbitrary and capricious action, that it is now almost meaningless.
When a telemarketer calls, they are costing you money and time. They should be obligated to pay you for listening to their unsolicited crap. In a sense, you could claim that they are "stealing" from you. But, this is the US - a country of by and for the corporations.
I wonder what would happen if you were to barge into one of their call centers to make your own personal long distance calls. I bet they wouldn't let you. Yet they they feel they have a right to invade our space and use our equipment for their own benefit!
The actions of Ryanair point to the continued trend of corporations to claim that they have a unilateral right to define how a product may be used post-sale. Besides imposing onerous terms of service (TOS, they also assert that they can change the TOS at any time (even retroactively). Copyright is simply being used as the legal "hook" for justifying these onerous claims.
If this trend continues the consumer will be stripped of all rights to the use of a product. Not only will all rights be stripped, but the consumer will be stuck with a significant "liability" exposure if the product is not used in the "approved" manner.
On the post: Why Won't The MPAA's Lawyers Identify Themselves?
Studios Sue to Bar a DVD Copying Program
“We are disappointed that the movie industry is following in the footsteps of the music industry and trying to shut down advances in technology, rather than embracing changes that provide consumers with more value and flexibility for their purchases,” RealNetworks said in a statement Tuesday.
On the post: eBay Moves Closer To Forcing Users To Use PayPal
A scary Concept
The first order of business if elected? Everyone in California or doing business in California will be forced to use PayPal.
On the post: Is Bell Canada Going To Purposely Screw Up GPS Signals To Harm Competitors?
Another Nail for Net Neutrality
Lets see, the financial institutions were freed of some regulation and look what happened. They used "innovation" to create junk financial instruments, which are now bring down our economy.
Those opposed to network neutrality claim that regulation would hurt "innovation". Mike's post is another example of how companies can potentially abuse "innovation" simply for their own self interest and not to foster the societal economic growth they claim.
On the post: eBay Moves Closer To Forcing Users To Use PayPal
What is Ebay Evolving Into?
With the introduction of new services such as PayPal and the current change in the terms of service to require the use of PayPal, Ebay is becoming a type of "middle man". In a sense they are now defining how the buyer and seller are to conduct their business in a manner that allows Ebay to exact "toll-both" style revenues.
I stopped using Ebay several years ago. PayPal sucks. Though I use Amazon.com, I am nervous since they have "adopted" some of Ebay's onerous strategies to generate greater revenues. I would like to see Amazon.com return to its more "pure" original state.
On the post: Grapes With An EULA
Products are No Longer Being Sold
On the post: Congress Not Shutting Down Open Access To NIH-Funded Research... Yet
Privitization of Public Data
Just recently TechDirt wrote Hey, Didn't Taxpayers Pay For Those Patents NASA Is Auctioning Off?
When public funds are used to: collect data, develop technology, fund medical research, etc. The information should be in the public domain. Corporations should not be allowed to squelch the flow of information.
If Corporations want to provide value added benefits to the public for a fee they are "free" to do so. They simply should not be allowed to have monopoly control of the data or to place access to the data behind a pay wall.
On the post: Hey, Didn't Taxpayers Pay For Those Patents NASA Is Auctioning Off?
Re: Good Point
On the post: Hey, Didn't Taxpayers Pay For Those Patents NASA Is Auctioning Off?
Good Point
With a "free" patent the company that uses it can sell the product cheaper as the cost of the patent does not have to be included. Furthermore, companies using the patent can freely compete.
With a "sold" patent, the amortized cost of the patent has to be included in the price of the product. Additionally, the patent holder will have a monopoly on the use of that patent. From the perspective of a "free market" this would not be efficient.
On the post: Hey, Didn't Taxpayers Pay For Those Patents NASA Is Auctioning Off?
Appalling Corporate Spin
Privatization of the radio spectrum is another issue that needs to be closely monitored. Those who advocate it, have yet to provide a clear picture of what that would mean. If the privatization of public patents serves as a model, I would envision a private spectrum where we would have to pay some spectrum owner a "toll" every time we turn on our microwave or use our WiFi connection.
To carry this to an even more absurd extreme, light bulbs emit RF energy. I would assume that someone would claim this segment of the RF spectrum and insist we pay a usage "toll" when we use our lights!
Public patents should remain in the public domain. Everyone benefits since there is no "toll booth" obstructing the use of the technology.
On the post: There They Go Again: Movie Industry Takes Yet Another Shot At DRM
Re: Piracy - a Red Herring
On the post: There They Go Again: Movie Industry Takes Yet Another Shot At DRM
Piracy - a Red Herring
I like this 1994 quote from John Perry Barlow: "The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent."
The LA Times article also makes statements that fail to disclose the implications of a DRM technology on the user. For example the LA Times wrote: "But the proponents say it's really about giving customers what they want. If the initiative works as intended, it will remove the barriers to customers watching or listening to the content they acquire on any of their devices, wherever they happen to be. No one will notice the locks on a file until they try to IM it to a friend.". Should the DRM technology be implemented, does this mean that we will have to buy all new equipment to use content????
On the post: Did Amazon Delete Spore Reviews? [Updated]
The Market does Speak
If this puts EA out of business, too bad, they made an incorrect choice.
On the post: How Patents Have Harmed University Research
Belongs in the Public Domain
NY Times wrote: "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 started out with the best of intentions. By clearing away the thicket of conflicting rules and regulations at various federal agencies, it set out to encourage universities to patent and license results of federally financed research. For the first time, academicians were able to profit personally from the market transfer of their work. For the first time, academia could be powered as much by a profit motive as by the psychic reward of new discovery."
What is distressing with the above quote??? The research is publicly funded and we provided the researcher a monetary incentive which is nice. But there is no mention of refunding the development expenses back to the government. This degenerates into another form of corporate welfare.
On the post: Quebec Lawsuit Highlights Problems With The Software Procurement Process
Great Article
On the post: Groups Urge Senate Not To Turn The Justice Department Into Hollywood's Private Police Force
Selective Protection
Wallach's post does not mention any pending legislation or existing legislation concerning consumer protection. It's silence on this issue and this TechDirt article demonstrate how the "squeaking wheel" gets all the attention. The entertainment industry by whining about piracy gets the attention of our government to pass legislation to protect their business interests even though this is supposed to be outside of government responsibility since we free market economy. However, the government (which is supposed to serve the citizens) is apparently unconcerned with fighting real crime which injures the consumer. Its unfortunate that our lawmakers have lost sight of the "public trust". We have a government of, by, and for the corporations.
On the post: EA Ignored The Warnings; Now Getting Slammed For Spore's DRM
Re: DRM Costs Companies $$$$$
On the post: EA Ignored The Warnings; Now Getting Slammed For Spore's DRM
DRM Costs Companies $$$$$
I haven't a clue, but I believe the DRM efforts are a waste of time, money, and resources that could have been devoted to other useful endeavors.
On the post: California: We Charge People To Read Our Laws For The Benefit Of Californians
Overlooking a critical distinction
However, there is a twist to this issue: ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION.
I believe that governments are obligated to provide free access to any public documents, especially laws.
The ACCESS question, however, becomes important in the context where a museum holds works that are out of copyright. Museums (private and public) routinely charge you to view exhibits. In that context, I don't have a problem with paying for access.(A gray area, the museum says you can't photograph an out of copyright exhibit.)
The concept of copyright has been so misconstrued now, to justify any arbitrary and capricious action, that it is now almost meaningless.
On the post: Suing Telemarketers And Winning
Theft of Your Assets
I wonder what would happen if you were to barge into one of their call centers to make your own personal long distance calls. I bet they wouldn't let you. Yet they they feel they have a right to invade our space and use our equipment for their own benefit!
On the post: Ryanair Tries To Defend Canceling Tickets Bought On Third Party Sites
More than Copyright
If this trend continues the consumer will be stripped of all rights to the use of a product. Not only will all rights be stripped, but the consumer will be stuck with a significant "liability" exposure if the product is not used in the "approved" manner.
Next >>