Back in April 2008 I attend the American Planning Association convention where the topic of airports and air space congestion were seminar items. I was aghast at the lack of innovative thinking on how to resolve problems in airline transportation. Especially in regard to the proposed Ivanpah Airport at Las Vegas. Got a capacity problem, just build more capacity irrespective of whether the resource (air space) can actually handle it.
Michael Long (#5) notes the marketing myopia of the railroad executives. The airline industry is making the same mistake. A solution to the airline mess would be to eliminate short haul airline trips and limit airline travel to long haul routes. Unfortunately, this goes against the grain of the free market.
In the end the free market will correct, but it will be like the current housing/financial bubble of today that is currently imploding. Do we really want to wait for a collapse of the airline industry and the consequential collateral economic damage?
While we may not like the evil word "regulation" I suggest that we start (gasp) prohibiting short haul air traffic and promote (gasp again) incentives to use rail for short haul routes. Unfortunately, solving a problem in advance is considered un-American.
PS: Airline travel would be discourage in situations where the total time, from the time you arrive at the airport to the time you depart your destination airport, equals of exceeds the approximate times it would take to arrive at your destination under alternative forms (car and/or rail).
Crosbie, You are correct that someone is entitled to take a "free" product and sell it for a profit. I should have been clear that I was referring to a situation where someone essentially privatizes something (like a freely developed computer program) in the public domain by asserting ownership and is therefore somehow entitled to all the so called "rights" of copyright.
Mike makes a very chilling observation of the Kam Industries position: "since Jacobsen gives the software away for free willingly, there's no copyright claim at all." (emphasis added) The obvious conclusion is that this would allow the "theft" of work that is freely created!!!!
I don't recall that copyright law, however onerous it currently is, requires that the creator "sell" the product in order to obtain the privilege of copyright. The defined purpose of copyright is to foster progress in the arts an science by giving the author a limited monopoly. Nothing says that one has to "sell" their work. In fact, I suppose, you could "sell" your work for $0.0.
The New York Times has an article on this too. I like the Times statement: "The court ruling also bolsters the open-source movement by easing the concerns of large organizations about relying on free software from hobbyists and hackers who have freely contributed time and energy without pay. People who freely give time and effort for the common good should not have their work "stolen" by those seeking to make a profit off of it.
Quite true, the banks "force" Diebold to tow the line. But it also points to another question. Why isn't Diebold being responsible in delivering a quality product?
Companies claim that "regulation" hurts them. Yet when they are "unrestrained" they simply take advantage of the consumer. Companies that abuse the free market through inferior products don't deserve to operate.
Vote counting is not a technologically complex task. The fact that Diebold has fumbled this and refuses to acknowledge their incompetence. This is a said comment on so-called corporate "expertise". I am just glad that Dilbert can give us everyday insight into how Diebold apparently works.
Great point. If the RIAA wants a third party to protect them, the RIAA should pay for it. It get's tiresome to hear the RIAA whine about how they need to be protected at our expense.
That reminds me, I have an old game CD that I needed in order to reinstall the game. I guess it got scratched, so it would not reload. The Box had plenty of advertising and the usual warnings to the effect that you have no rights. My point - Nowhere on the box was there any contact information on how to get a replacement CD!!!!
If companies want us to respect their rights, they need to respect our rights too. Obviously they don't so why should we?
Ubersoft has several great cartoon panels that highlight how Corporations are criminalizing any activity that they deem is a frustration of their business models. Clearly we have a growing double standard in how the law is applied.
Sprint has lost nearly a million customers this quarter. According to the article, Sprint did this to improve the "quality" of Sprints customers.
The Times writes: "But the customer losses left some analysts pondering what Sprint’s prospects are. “It’s fine to say you are getting rid of undesirable customers, but that means you have to make significant growth someplace else to make up for it,” said Walter Piecyk, an analyst at Pali Research who covers wireless companies. “It’s a company in perpetual decline.”"
What is missing from Sprint's comments on their decline??? IMPROVED CUSTOMER SERVICE. Its fine to want quality customers, but I don't think quality customers will stick around if they are treated poorly. Seems that Sprint only wants zombies as customers.
The topic of network neutrality heated up just recently with regards to Comcast. There have been the usual anti-regulatory posts claiming that we need an unregulated internet. Ironically, when it comes to Congress considering the passage of industry sponsored regulations, such as the "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008," there appears to be an amazing silence. Does this silence imply an implicit support of regulation despite public prostrations that regulation is bad? Theoretically, regulation is regulation and should be opposed no matter what its source. I hope that I am wrong.
The Early Termination Fee is $200. You had the phone for 1.5 years. If one assumes that an Early Termination Fee is valid, which I don't, then you should only be on the hook for $50.00 since you only had 25% of your contract remaining.
Also, just because the phone is "old" doesn't make it worthless. When we ditched Sprint, we were able to sell our "old" phone, which I believe was over 4 years old at the time of sale.
"No bad checks to worry about, no merchant accounts, no giant hurdles between you and the person on the other end of your transaction. When the merchant fails to deliver the merchandise, under PayPal your money is gone, gone, gone.
Also, Amazon.com seems to have "resolved" the ability of Jane and Dick to get paid. Based on a recent credit purchase that I made at Amazon.com they somehow "forward" the credit payment to the small merchant. E-bay could have implemented the same the same type of payment strategy. Unfortunately, it appears that Amazon.com seeks to emulate E-Bay's bad business model. For everyone's "protection" E-Bay could sue Amazon.com for "stealing" their business model. Maybe that will deter Amazon.com from going down this ridiculous road.
Sorry about this Mike, but I have visceral reaction to PayPal "while simple in concept". From the getgo, this concept had the appearance of an unnecessary telemarketing gimmick that adds virtually zero value. If we can use Discover, Visa, or American Express why would we need a third party intermediary to handle a cash transfer that the credit card companies already provide!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I have really liked Amazon.com, but they seem intent on going the way of E-Bay and making "bad" business decisions to "foster" growth. While making money is fundamental to capitalism, I am consistently dismayed when companies get gimmicky to raise profit levels. I would like to see Amazon.com return to a "simple" business plan.
We were once customers of Sprint, and Sprint "lost" a class action lawsuit for improper billing practices. The so-called settlement was that Sprint would give a customer a $15.00 credit off their next bill. Well, by then we had quit. Since we had quit Sprint, the settlement did provide that we could get a $15.00 credit by signing up for one of Sprint's 2-year service plans. We didn't see that as a viable option, so we never saw our $15.00 refund. So even though Sprint "lost" they still kept the money. I bet the class action lawyers saw real money and not a credit off their next Sprint bill. I hope, in this case, that the Sprint customers will see real money and not a credit off the next bill.
Additionally, the logic behind the early termination fees is highly flawed. It should be only for actual damages. If a renter breaks a lease and the landlord finds a new renter in a couple of days, the old renter is only on the hook for the days the apartment was actually vacant. So if one breaks a cell phone contract and returns the phone, there should be no early termination charge as the phone company can re-sell the phone to a new customer.
Simply put, implementing DRM costs money and this money could be put to other productive uses. The LA Times writes "Warner created a "chain of custody" to track who had access to the film at any moment. It varied the shipping and delivery methods, staggering the delivery of film reels, so the entire movie wouldn't arrive at multiplexes in one shipment, in order to reduce risk of an entire copy being lost or stolen. It conducted spot checks of hundreds of theaters domestically and abroad, to ensure that illegal camcording wasn't taking place. It even handed out night-vision goggles to exhibitors in Australia, where the film opened two days before its U.S. launch, to scan the audience for the telltale infrared signal of a camcorder.
So how much did this so-called security cost? From the accounting perspective, did the cost of security actually save money for Warner Brothers? Probably not. As others have noted, piracy might actually promote more DVD sales and associated merchandising.
This post points to the continued abusive practice of supposed victims (whether a family, the MPPA, RIAA, or the IFPI) to establish that third parties are 1: liable and 2: required to take proactive measures to protect them. We have evolved into a society where nothing is ever your fault, we are all victims entitled to compensation.
Five years seems reasonable> My take is that only one or two renewal periods should be allowed based on the concept of a limited copyright period. An underlying principle is that copyrights are granted to foster innovation NOT to make the artist "rich"; however you want to define "rich".
Thanks Shaun for the reference to computer games. The five year fee based renewal period raises the concept of "performance criteria". If the product author no longer pays to keep the copyright because the product has lost economic value, it falls into the public domain.
In regards to computer software (games and operating systems), if a company "abandons" a product for five years it should also fall into the public domain. Old software and games that a company no longer makes available, where known patches are no longer available, no tech support, etc. should fall into the public domain after five years. Simply paying a renewal fee should not be allowed if software is discontinued (abandoned).
Besides the obvious logical flaws in Seth Oster comments there is the the clear disconnect of private companies seeking regulatory support from the FCC for their business model. The usual mantra of private industry is "don't regulate us, it hurts innovation and business", obviously the MPPA doesn't really believe in the free market.
Given our litigiousness society, the DVR manufactures should undertake a preemptive lawsuit against the MPPA for trying to put them out of business. After all, don't DVR manufactures also deserve their own "special" regulations to foster their business model.
Some companies, when you call, have ads while you are waiting to talk to a customer service representative. I wonder if the "waiting" period is real or contrived so that you are forced hear the advertising??
I have had to wait for my credit slip at the gas-pump while a small tiny add scrolls across the screen. Again, am I being forced to "wait" so that I have to see more advertising??
While watching TV, I have noticed advertising sneaking into the corners of the regular programing. So advertising, on TV is no longer restricted to "official" breaks but is now being slipped into the regular programing.
Sensory overload means that we become insensitive to this advertising. Unfortunately to the marketers (like a drug addict who becomes insensitive to their fix) the only solution is even greater herculean marketing efforts even if they are ineffective or aggravate the consumer.
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
The Business of Transportation
Michael Long (#5) notes the marketing myopia of the railroad executives. The airline industry is making the same mistake. A solution to the airline mess would be to eliminate short haul airline trips and limit airline travel to long haul routes. Unfortunately, this goes against the grain of the free market.
In the end the free market will correct, but it will be like the current housing/financial bubble of today that is currently imploding. Do we really want to wait for a collapse of the airline industry and the consequential collateral economic damage?
While we may not like the evil word "regulation" I suggest that we start (gasp) prohibiting short haul air traffic and promote (gasp again) incentives to use rail for short haul routes. Unfortunately, solving a problem in advance is considered un-American.
PS: Airline travel would be discourage in situations where the total time, from the time you arrive at the airport to the time you depart your destination airport, equals of exceeds the approximate times it would take to arrive at your destination under alternative forms (car and/or rail).
On the post: Does Court Ruling Over Artistic License Conflict With Other Copyright Rulings?
Re: Re: Free Means No Copyright Right?????
On the post: Does Court Ruling Over Artistic License Conflict With Other Copyright Rulings?
Free Means No Copyright Right?????
I don't recall that copyright law, however onerous it currently is, requires that the creator "sell" the product in order to obtain the privilege of copyright. The defined purpose of copyright is to foster progress in the arts an science by giving the author a limited monopoly. Nothing says that one has to "sell" their work. In fact, I suppose, you could "sell" your work for $0.0.
The New York Times has an article on this too. I like the Times statement: "The court ruling also bolsters the open-source movement by easing the concerns of large organizations about relying on free software from hobbyists and hackers who have freely contributed time and energy without pay. People who freely give time and effort for the common good should not have their work "stolen" by those seeking to make a profit off of it.
On the post: Ohio Sues Diebold/Premiere Over Lost E-Voting Votes
Re: Re: Re: You clearly misunderstood...
Companies claim that "regulation" hurts them. Yet when they are "unrestrained" they simply take advantage of the consumer. Companies that abuse the free market through inferior products don't deserve to operate.
On the post: Ohio Sues Diebold/Premiere Over Lost E-Voting Votes
Dilbert Must Work for Diebold
On the post: Universities Realize That The RIAA Is Taking Advantage Of Them In Lawsuits On Students
Re: Capitalism at Work
That reminds me, I have an old game CD that I needed in order to reinstall the game. I guess it got scratched, so it would not reload. The Box had plenty of advertising and the usual warnings to the effect that you have no rights. My point - Nowhere on the box was there any contact information on how to get a replacement CD!!!!
If companies want us to respect their rights, they need to respect our rights too. Obviously they don't so why should we?
On the post: Universities Realize That The RIAA Is Taking Advantage Of Them In Lawsuits On Students
Grand Unified Interconnected Litigation Theory
On the post: Court Makes Sprint Pay $73 Million Early Termination Fee
Sprint Puts Positive Spin on Losses
Sprint has lost nearly a million customers this quarter. According to the article, Sprint did this to improve the "quality" of Sprints customers.
The Times writes: "But the customer losses left some analysts pondering what Sprint’s prospects are. “It’s fine to say you are getting rid of undesirable customers, but that means you have to make significant growth someplace else to make up for it,” said Walter Piecyk, an analyst at Pali Research who covers wireless companies. “It’s a company in perpetual decline.”"
What is missing from Sprint's comments on their decline??? IMPROVED CUSTOMER SERVICE. Its fine to want quality customers, but I don't think quality customers will stick around if they are treated poorly. Seems that Sprint only wants zombies as customers.
On the post: Congress Moves Forward With Plan To Make Universities Copyright Cops
Where is the anti-regulatory crowd????
On the post: Bandwidth Caps Keep Getting Lower And Lower
Typical American Capitalism
On the post: Court Makes Sprint Pay $73 Million Early Termination Fee
Re: Re: Sprint Bad
Also, just because the phone is "old" doesn't make it worthless. When we ditched Sprint, we were able to sell our "old" phone, which I believe was over 4 years old at the time of sale.
On the post: Amazon Launches Payment Service... Again
Re: PayPal Sucks?
Also, Amazon.com seems to have "resolved" the ability of Jane and Dick to get paid. Based on a recent credit purchase that I made at Amazon.com they somehow "forward" the credit payment to the small merchant. E-bay could have implemented the same the same type of payment strategy. Unfortunately, it appears that Amazon.com seeks to emulate E-Bay's bad business model. For everyone's "protection" E-Bay could sue Amazon.com for "stealing" their business model. Maybe that will deter Amazon.com from going down this ridiculous road.
On the post: Amazon Launches Payment Service... Again
PayPal Sucks
I have really liked Amazon.com, but they seem intent on going the way of E-Bay and making "bad" business decisions to "foster" growth. While making money is fundamental to capitalism, I am consistently dismayed when companies get gimmicky to raise profit levels. I would like to see Amazon.com return to a "simple" business plan.
On the post: Court Makes Sprint Pay $73 Million Early Termination Fee
Sprint Bad
Additionally, the logic behind the early termination fees is highly flawed. It should be only for actual damages. If a renter breaks a lease and the landlord finds a new renter in a couple of days, the old renter is only on the hook for the days the apartment was actually vacant. So if one breaks a cell phone contract and returns the phone, there should be no early termination charge as the phone company can re-sell the phone to a new customer.
On the post: MPAA Still Clueless; Claims Anti-Piracy Is Why Dark Knight Had A Huge Opening
LA Times Article
Simply put, implementing DRM costs money and this money could be put to other productive uses. The LA Times writes "Warner created a "chain of custody" to track who had access to the film at any moment. It varied the shipping and delivery methods, staggering the delivery of film reels, so the entire movie wouldn't arrive at multiplexes in one shipment, in order to reduce risk of an entire copy being lost or stolen. It conducted spot checks of hundreds of theaters domestically and abroad, to ensure that illegal camcording wasn't taking place. It even handed out night-vision goggles to exhibitors in Australia, where the film opened two days before its U.S. launch, to scan the audience for the telltale infrared signal of a camcorder.
So how much did this so-called security cost? From the accounting perspective, did the cost of security actually save money for Warner Brothers? Probably not. As others have noted, piracy might actually promote more DVD sales and associated merchandising.
On the post: Judge Recognizes The Obvious: Printer Shouldn't Be Liable For A Book It Prints
Communications Decency Act
On the post: Judge Recognizes The Obvious: Printer Shouldn't Be Liable For A Book It Prints
The Growing Search for Liability
On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
Re: Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this
Thanks Shaun for the reference to computer games. The five year fee based renewal period raises the concept of "performance criteria". If the product author no longer pays to keep the copyright because the product has lost economic value, it falls into the public domain.
In regards to computer software (games and operating systems), if a company "abandons" a product for five years it should also fall into the public domain. Old software and games that a company no longer makes available, where known patches are no longer available, no tech support, etc. should fall into the public domain after five years. Simply paying a renewal fee should not be allowed if software is discontinued (abandoned).
On the post: MPAA Doubletalk On FCC Request To Block DVR Recordings
The Free Market at Work
Given our litigiousness society, the DVR manufactures should undertake a preemptive lawsuit against the MPPA for trying to put them out of business. After all, don't DVR manufactures also deserve their own "special" regulations to foster their business model.
On the post: Fewer Amenities When You Fly... But Instead You'll Get A Lot More Ads!
Marketing as a Drug Additction
I have had to wait for my credit slip at the gas-pump while a small tiny add scrolls across the screen. Again, am I being forced to "wait" so that I have to see more advertising??
While watching TV, I have noticed advertising sneaking into the corners of the regular programing. So advertising, on TV is no longer restricted to "official" breaks but is now being slipped into the regular programing.
Sensory overload means that we become insensitive to this advertising. Unfortunately to the marketers (like a drug addict who becomes insensitive to their fix) the only solution is even greater herculean marketing efforts even if they are ineffective or aggravate the consumer.
Next >>