Seems to me that WALL-E, to be polite, is a reincarnation of Short Circuit. Both robot characters look strikingly similar from the ambulance-chasing infringement perspective!!!!
The way our legal system is evolving, the concept of "due process" is being castrated. If you don't need proof of "infringement" and there is no penalty for instigating false claims, then the floodgates of abuse are wide open.
Furthermore, it appears that companies don't even have to provide proof that they actually own content in order to "lock the content down".
The problem with bundling is that it distorts free market operations. If you get a bundle, I can see how it could cost less. But I also wonder who is subsidizing whom????
For example, I would never subscribe to the Home Shopping Network or ESPEN. Now if I am buying a bundle that includes these stations are they paying the cable company thereby helping me to lower my subscription cost or am I actually subsidizing these stations through my cable subscription????
One of the ironies with this bundling concept, is that those who are advocating that it is alright for a corporation to bundle a service claiming that is a social good are also opposed to government providing the same type of "bundle" to its citizens claiming that it prevents a free market from operating. If one is truly committed to free markets, bundling would not be allowed.
Advertising is a valid method of funding our "free" ability to surf the web. Unfortunately, advertising (in many cases) is quite abusive. The ability, for example, to pay a "special" fee to get greater advertising visibility.
It would be interesting to see if the marketer's could formulate some "rules of conduct" for advertising standards. Unfortunately, that is probably the same as asking a drug addict to go to rehab. Oh well, I guess regulation is the way to go. Let the marketing anti-regulatory whining begin.
Its unfortunate that most discussions concerning the concept of property rights are from the perspective of the content producer and their attempts to aggrandize their so-called property rights. Usually they scream how stronger property laws are needed to fight all those pirates who are supposedly stealing from them. Witness Mike's recognition of this issue with: "too many limitations are placed on how certain goods can be used." Unfortunately too many people fall for this pirating "red herring" not realizing that they are being suckered.
In reality, many companies through FUD are attempting to eliminate the concept that goods are actually sold to the buyer. Instead they claim that you are either "leasing" or "licensing" the use of that product. Thus the consumer is denied the property right that would normally go with those goods. From the perspective of the consumer, our property rights are being abolished.
Corporation are eliminating the concept of "sell" in their quest for total control. Now we are are only allowed to "lease" or "license" the product and we can only use it in conformance with the corporate EULA. So according to the corporations we never own anything and we don't have any rights. Time for a change?
Re: So I can't legally resell something I bought leagally?
A problem that we seem to have today is that corporations are assuming "police powers" and are not constrained by "due process". So if a corporation says you are doing something they define as illegal, you are guilty. No proof necessary.
Furthermore, it seems that nothing is actually sold anymore, so you actually never own it. I guess corporations let us lease stuff so that we won't be burdened by the obligations of ownership.
The insurance companies will probably go to Congress and lobby for a law to require that such devices be installed in our cars. Similar to the DCMA it will be illegal to circumvent this technology. Of course it's for our safety and homeland security.
When it comes to business "data" and citizen "data" we have seem to have two standards. Business believe that they can expropriate private data at will. We already have had example where the medical profession has taken samples from patients (without their permission in some cases) and developed tests, patented those tests, and made money; and given the patient zippo.
Now if you, as a citizen, take business "data" such as a song you are deemed to be guilty of theft! Not only that, but as Mike has pointed out in other articles, the MPAA and the RIAA want to ignore due process. If they say you are guilty, you are guilty irrespective of the existence of any evidence.
Business' should NOT have a right to expropriate, at will, what is not theirs.
Re: Further proof that the cure is worse than the disease...
How wrong. SOX promoted innovation. Those who scheme to separate us from our money are very innovative when it comes to finding ways to circumvent legislation.
In a sense you are correct. SOX was the stupidest legislation in history since our financial institutions were able to create financial instruments (CDO) that were nothing more than a pyramid scheme. The companies are harming themselves through improper risk management and improper accounting, the legislation is not at fault.
As has been pointed out many times, regulations have a tendency to foster innovation by coming up with new innovative ways to get around them. Sarbanes-Oxley gets kicked around quite a bit, but it didn't save us from the current meltdown in the financial stocks. I would guess that no VC backed firms went public since the shills couldn't find enough marks with any money left.
Medill Journalism wrote: "Researchers at University Patents Inc. (UPI) in the early 1980s discovered a relationship between elevated levels of the amino acid homocysteine and the deficiency of two B vitamins, folate and cobalamin.
These vitamins help form homocysteine, and the researchers noted that unusually high homocysteine levels often signaled dangerously low levels of the important vitamins. Elevated homocysteine levels have been connected with a variety of health problems, including lupus, renal disease, arthritis and Alzheimer's disease."
Lori Andrews, a Chicago-Kent College of Law professor who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief supporting LabCorp stated:"It seems ridiculous to think someone can own a scientific fact and make it a patent, ... Imagine if you are in the ER, do you want the doctor running off to do a patent search to see if he can treat you?"(emphasis added).
The patent system may be corrupt. A reasonable reaction to that may be patent hoarding. But ....
We have two issues. First, as Mike has pointed out we have a shift in Microsoft's world view. Corruption of our patent system is irrelevant. Microsoft is simply now a company that is not interested in innovation but a company that now views its products as "cash cows". Litigation is necessary to keep the toll-booths in existence so they can exact revenue.
Second, OK - corruption is an issue. Then why don't we hear about Microsoft lobbying Congress to get the patent system fixed? If Disney can get favorable legislation passed by Congress to protect its business model; Microsoft could also go to Congress to reform the patent system. The fact that they apparently don't implies that Microsoft really is NOT interested in fixing the patent system. Ergo, they want the revenue stream that the toll-booths provide.
I wonder if we can apply to the Bill Gates Foundation for grant monies to fix the world-wide abuse of intellectual property so that we can feed the children?
My daughter decided it was time to wipe her hard drive. She is making the computer dual book Ubuntu/WindowsXP. The Ubuntu 8.04 install went perfectly. It took several tries to get WindowsXP fully installed. Ubuntu trumped windows!!
A few months ago, I was window shopping at Best Buy, and I asked (for the hell of it) if I could buy a computer without Windows VISTA. Their response was that I could not buy a computer without Windows VISTA. One should be able to buy a computer without the operating system.
Its unfortunate that Microsoft, like many large companies, has lost its way. Hopefully LINUX will continue to rise and dethrone Microsoft.
Actually this points to a "bigger" issue, which fortunately does not seem to have yet "hit the fan".
Last year the PCs in our house were fried by a lightening strike, we took our PCs in to get repaired. The PCs, of course, has a lot of private data on them that the repair folks would have had access to.
Doctors and Lawyers have a have a fiduciary duty to protect their clients and (in most cases) can't be forced to disclose personal information about their clients. Seems like the time is right for a similar code of conduct for PC repair persons.
Fortunately, from the absence of any horror stories in the media, that your local PC repair shop is quite ethical.
Last night I was listening to talk radio. Evidently, the Mayor of Los Angeles was able to get a quickie certification to perform marriages so he could grandstand the "first" gay marriage in Los Angeles. Needless to say, someone who actually jumped through all the hoops to obtain a marriage certification stated how irritated he was by this "short-cutting".
Politicians claim to tackle the "big" issues, but as Mike and the other posters have pointed out the politicians are not really interested in solving our problems. They simply project an appearance that they are being proactive so they can look good (face time) before a constituency. Smoke and mirrors.
Here is a quote from a judge: " Kozinski: There are always threats to free speech. Government doesn’t like to be criticized. Owners of copyrights and other intellectual property rights are very grabby. They think they own everything, or they think they invented everything."
The The Mad(Patent)Prosecutor wrote "because the complainers are not complaining that copyright unnecessarily limits their rights to anything they have created - they are complaining that they can't take what someone else has created."
The problem with this statement is that the copyright holders have been aggrandizing their so-called property rights. This comes at the diminishment of the property rights of the content users. Yes, content users also have property rights to the use of content they have bought.
We simply should not accept the copyright discussion from the viewpoint of the content producer. Instead we should view it from a level playing field that also recognizes the property right of the content user to use that content.
Copyright was meant to be a LIMITED monopoly, once it is over, you have a right to use that content anyway you like.
On the post: Disney Sues Party Store For Costumes Looking Like Disney Characters
Can't Resist
On the post: Is Major League Soccer Sending False DMCA Takedown Notices?
Only the Begining
Furthermore, it appears that companies don't even have to provide proof that they actually own content in order to "lock the content down".
On the post: Yet Another Report On Why Forcing A La Carte Cable Is A Bad Idea
On the Fence with Bundling
For example, I would never subscribe to the Home Shopping Network or ESPEN. Now if I am buying a bundle that includes these stations are they paying the cable company thereby helping me to lower my subscription cost or am I actually subsidizing these stations through my cable subscription????
One of the ironies with this bundling concept, is that those who are advocating that it is alright for a corporation to bundle a service claiming that is a social good are also opposed to government providing the same type of "bundle" to its citizens claiming that it prevents a free market from operating. If one is truly committed to free markets, bundling would not be allowed.
On the post: Now Companies Suing eBay For Giving Others Better Listings
Hyper Commercialism
It would be interesting to see if the marketer's could formulate some "rules of conduct" for advertising standards. Unfortunately, that is probably the same as asking a drug addict to go to rehab. Oh well, I guess regulation is the way to go. Let the marketing anti-regulatory whining begin.
On the post: Too Much Ownership Can Be Bad For The Economy
Goods are no longer sold.
In reality, many companies through FUD are attempting to eliminate the concept that goods are actually sold to the buyer. Instead they claim that you are either "leasing" or "licensing" the use of that product. Thus the consumer is denied the property right that would normally go with those goods. From the perspective of the consumer, our property rights are being abolished.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Continues To Try To Sneak Copyright Expansion Through ACTA
Burden of Broof on the Defendent
"Provide that the presumption of ownership may be rebutted only if the defendant is able to provide concrete evidence to the contrary.1"
On the post: Yet Another Lawsuit Over Whether A Company Can Ban The Sale Of Its Products Online
Its leased
On the post: Yet Another Lawsuit Over Whether A Company Can Ban The Sale Of Its Products Online
Re: So I can't legally resell something I bought leagally?
Furthermore, it seems that nothing is actually sold anymore, so you actually never own it. I guess corporations let us lease stuff so that we won't be burdened by the obligations of ownership.
On the post: Turns Out Drivers Not So Interested In Big Brother Style Car Insurance
Let the Lobbying begin
On the post: Marketing Execs And Privacy Execs Disagree Over What Companies Do With Private Info
Double Standard
Now if you, as a citizen, take business "data" such as a song you are deemed to be guilty of theft! Not only that, but as Mike has pointed out in other articles, the MPAA and the RIAA want to ignore due process. If they say you are guilty, you are guilty irrespective of the existence of any evidence.
Business' should NOT have a right to expropriate, at will, what is not theirs.
On the post: No VC-Backed Companies Go Public In Q2
Re: Further proof that the cure is worse than the disease...
In a sense you are correct. SOX was the stupidest legislation in history since our financial institutions were able to create financial instruments (CDO) that were nothing more than a pyramid scheme. The companies are harming themselves through improper risk management and improper accounting, the legislation is not at fault.
On the post: No VC-Backed Companies Go Public In Q2
Sarbanes-Oxley Irrelevent
On the post: Patent Battles Make It That Much More Difficult To Keep People Healthy
Worse than Portrayed
Medill Journalism wrote:
"Researchers at University Patents Inc. (UPI) in the early 1980s discovered a relationship between elevated levels of the amino acid homocysteine and the deficiency of two B vitamins, folate and cobalamin.
These vitamins help form homocysteine, and the researchers noted that unusually high homocysteine levels often signaled dangerously low levels of the important vitamins. Elevated homocysteine levels have been connected with a variety of health problems, including lupus, renal disease, arthritis and Alzheimer's disease."
Lori Andrews, a Chicago-Kent College of Law professor who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief supporting LabCorp stated:"It seems ridiculous to think someone can own a scientific fact and make it a patent, ... Imagine if you are in the ER, do you want the doctor running off to do a patent search to see if he can treat you?"(emphasis added).
On the post: Microsoft Hoarding Patents Like They're Going Out Of Fashion
Its a Matter of Perspective
We have two issues. First, as Mike has pointed out we have a shift in Microsoft's world view. Corruption of our patent system is irrelevant. Microsoft is simply now a company that is not interested in innovation but a company that now views its products as "cash cows". Litigation is necessary to keep the toll-booths in existence so they can exact revenue.
Second, OK - corruption is an issue. Then why don't we hear about Microsoft lobbying Congress to get the patent system fixed? If Disney can get favorable legislation passed by Congress to protect its business model; Microsoft could also go to Congress to reform the patent system. The fact that they apparently don't implies that Microsoft really is NOT interested in fixing the patent system. Ergo, they want the revenue stream that the toll-booths provide.
I wonder if we can apply to the Bill Gates Foundation for grant monies to fix the world-wide abuse of intellectual property so that we can feed the children?
On the post: You Thought You Hated Windows? Check Out What Bill Gates Had To Say
Re: There is a reason Vista is crap.
A few months ago, I was window shopping at Best Buy, and I asked (for the hell of it) if I could buy a computer without Windows VISTA. Their response was that I could not buy a computer without Windows VISTA. One should be able to buy a computer without the operating system.
Its unfortunate that Microsoft, like many large companies, has lost its way. Hopefully LINUX will continue to rise and dethrone Microsoft.
On the post: Yeah, Your IT Guy Is Probably Reading Your Email
Your Local PC Repair Storefront
Last year the PCs in our house were fried by a lightening strike, we took our PCs in to get repaired. The PCs, of course, has a lot of private data on them that the repair folks would have had access to.
Doctors and Lawyers have a have a fiduciary duty to protect their clients and (in most cases) can't be forced to disclose personal information about their clients. Seems like the time is right for a similar code of conduct for PC repair persons.
Fortunately, from the absence of any horror stories in the media, that your local PC repair shop is quite ethical.
On the post: Congress Trying To Make It Legal To Ignore Tax Planning Patents
Face Time
Politicians claim to tackle the "big" issues, but as Mike and the other posters have pointed out the politicians are not really interested in solving our problems. They simply project an appearance that they are being proactive so they can look good (face time) before a constituency. Smoke and mirrors.
On the post: MPAA Explains Why Proof Shouldn't Be Necessary In Copyright Infringement Cases
Due Process Anyone ???
On the post: The Other Future Of Copyright: The Draconian Suffocating One
Re: Re: Copyright Aggrandizement
On the post: The Other Future Of Copyright: The Draconian Suffocating One
Copyright Aggrandizement
The problem with this statement is that the copyright holders have been aggrandizing their so-called property rights. This comes at the diminishment of the property rights of the content users. Yes, content users also have property rights to the use of content they have bought.
We simply should not accept the copyright discussion from the viewpoint of the content producer. Instead we should view it from a level playing field that also recognizes the property right of the content user to use that content.
Copyright was meant to be a LIMITED monopoly, once it is over, you have a right to use that content anyway you like.
Next >>