How does "getting the money out" (assuming that is even possible) limit politician's power to rig markets?
I don't get the logic.
I realize people don't want politicians to be bribed to act against the public interest, but I don't see how moving the bribery under the table is an improvement. Isn't transparent bribery better?
I think we need more constitutional limits on the ability of legislation to rig markets - it ought to be unconstitutional to pass a law that limits competition or restricts economic freedoms (directly or indirectly) without a clear public benefit that exceeds the public costs. Those who think a law has crossed the line ought to be able to take it to court.
Re: "if the person knows or should have known that the depicted person has not consented to the disclosure."
It seems to me that if a person poses for a professional photographer (pornographer, whatever), there is normally a model release or similar giving the photographer consent of the model. Otherwise, what is the point?
So the very fact that something is professionally-made porno, tells the viewer that the model has given consent.
I don't see the problem here. Am I hopelessly confused?
Agreed. I don't see how Lessig hopes to get anywhere by taking "money" out of the system. As long as politicians have the power to rig markets, keep out competition, etc., people will FIND ways to get those goodies.
If they can't bribe with money openly, they'll do it under the table.
Modern tech makes looking up owners from plate numbers trivial - you don't need a plate scanner, you just need a camera and Internet connection.
When introduced 100 years ago, plates could have had the owner's name on them - but that was considered an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Quasi-random plate numbers made looking up owners possible, but intentionally difficult and slow.
Technology has changed that. We accept plates now only because we're used to them. Unless you think it's also a good idea to require pedestrians to wear a giant sign with their name on it, it's time to get rid of license plates.
Cars already have VIN numbers stamped all over them - that is enough. The VIN is printed small and isn't readable by every passing person.
If you get pulled over for a traffic violation, then the cop can ask for your vehicle paperwork.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fraud, where are our, ahem, protectors?
One should NOT have to read the details.
Sometimes an offer is not simple. The details have to go somewhere.
If you want X Mbps whenever you want it, 24x7, then fine - go buy a server ISP plan. It will cost 20x more than a shared plan that gives you X Mbps only 90% of the time.
Who's discretion as to when you get 10000 or 10?
The other users who are sharing your pool of bandwidth, of course. If they're all using bandwidth at the same time you are, you'll get less than if you happen to be the only one using it at that instant.
If you want server-level 100% bandwidth on demand, you are going to pay a lot for it. (And that's fine, if you're willing to pay.)
But most people would much rather pay far less for a guaranteed X/5 minimum bitrate, and X 90% of the time.
You shouldn't be telling them they can't buy that, if that's what they want.
Fraud is indeed a huge unacknowledged problem; non-enforcement of fraud laws is a HUGE problem, and I think is ultimately behind an awful lot of the dissatisfaction with "capitalism".
But. There are cases (and Internet access speed is one) where selling access to a resource pool ("up to" some limited rate of consumption) is reasonable.
Suppose it costs $1/Mbps/month to provide Internet service.
Under your "100%" scheme, providing a 100 Mbps service will cost $100/month.
But for $10/month I can provision a 1000 Mbps line to serve 100 houses and offer (no fraud involved):
* 100% of the time you get 10 Mbps or more. * 90% of the time you get 100 Mbps or more. * 1% of the time you get 1000 Mbps.
Just try to set up your own cable company - you'll find out about:
* Permission to run wires * Rules from state utility commissions * Regulations from the FCC
Those are just broad categories. And the regulators who issue those rules have been bought by the incumbents, one way or another (as happens in every regulated industry).
Expecting the same regulators and politicians who have been enabling the closed market for cable services to suddenly start caring about consumers is ridiculous.
Google has the right approach - break into the market with big dollars and big marketing to overcome political resistance. But that is hard.
But focusing on the merger is allowing the bad guys to distract us from the real problem - barriers to entry in the market.
Every rule & regulation creates winners and losers.
We want the legislature to pass laws that create net positive effects - the benefits should be larger than the costs.
Some laws spread costs and benefits pretty evenly - no compensation is needed for those. But others concentrate costs on a few, for the benefit of the public at large. In those cases compensation for the losers seems only fair.
If you can't afford to pay the compensation, that's a sign that you've got a bad law - the benefits are supposed to be bigger than the costs.
Re:If you're providing "secure" services, you should *ALREADY* have such legal help lined up.
Absolutely.
The result here is a shame, but I don't blame the court too much. Lavabit screwed up big time.
Anyone running a service whose operation is likely to frustrate the authorities (even if that's not the intent, and legal and legitimate as it may be) needs to have good legal help a single phone call away from day 1.
If you don't have that, you're not serious about it.
On the post: Appeals Court Doesn't Understand The Difference Between Software And An API; Declares APIs Copyrightable
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: To Succeed At EPA: Watch Tons Of Porn, (Don't) Work From Home, Or Pretend You're A Secret Agent
Re: Living the dream
But somehow I'm uncomfortable with the idea that "the dream" is living as a parasite on the work of others.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
On the post: Larry Lessig's Anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC Already Halfway To $1 Million Initial Target
Re: Re: Re: No, no, no, no, no
I don't get the logic.
I realize people don't want politicians to be bribed to act against the public interest, but I don't see how moving the bribery under the table is an improvement. Isn't transparent bribery better?
I think we need more constitutional limits on the ability of legislation to rig markets - it ought to be unconstitutional to pass a law that limits competition or restricts economic freedoms (directly or indirectly) without a clear public benefit that exceeds the public costs. Those who think a law has crossed the line ought to be able to take it to court.
On the post: Will Broadly-Written 'Revenge Porn' Laws Encourage Shady Law Firms To Engage In 'Revenge Porn' Trolling?
Re: "if the person knows or should have known that the depicted person has not consented to the disclosure."
So the very fact that something is professionally-made porno, tells the viewer that the model has given consent.
I don't see the problem here. Am I hopelessly confused?
On the post: US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon
No test for obviousness
Without such a test, the PTO can really only reject applications based on prior art.
On the post: Larry Lessig's Anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC Already Halfway To $1 Million Initial Target
Re: No, no, no, no, no
If they can't bribe with money openly, they'll do it under the table.
I'd rather have it in the open.
On the post: NYPD Officers Expect Public To Be Stupider Than They Are; Justify Shutting Down Recording With 'iPhones Are Guns' Claim
Re: The barrel must be in 4th dimension
On the post: Company Uses Bogus Polls And Gag Orders To Protect Image Of License Plate Scanning
The problem is licence plates, not scanners
Modern tech makes looking up owners from plate numbers trivial - you don't need a plate scanner, you just need a camera and Internet connection.
When introduced 100 years ago, plates could have had the owner's name on them - but that was considered an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Quasi-random plate numbers made looking up owners possible, but intentionally difficult and slow.
Technology has changed that. We accept plates now only because we're used to them. Unless you think it's also a good idea to require pedestrians to wear a giant sign with their name on it, it's time to get rid of license plates.
Cars already have VIN numbers stamped all over them - that is enough. The VIN is printed small and isn't readable by every passing person.
If you get pulled over for a traffic violation, then the cop can ask for your vehicle paperwork.
On the post: What Inefficient Airline Boarding Procedures Have To Do With Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fraud, where are our, ahem, protectors?
If you want X Mbps whenever you want it, 24x7, then fine - go buy a server ISP plan. It will cost 20x more than a shared plan that gives you X Mbps only 90% of the time.
The other users who are sharing your pool of bandwidth, of course. If they're all using bandwidth at the same time you are, you'll get less than if you happen to be the only one using it at that instant.
If you want server-level 100% bandwidth on demand, you are going to pay a lot for it. (And that's fine, if you're willing to pay.)
But most people would much rather pay far less for a guaranteed X/5 minimum bitrate, and X 90% of the time.
You shouldn't be telling them they can't buy that, if that's what they want.
On the post: What Inefficient Airline Boarding Procedures Have To Do With Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fraud, where are our, ahem, protectors?
On the post: What Inefficient Airline Boarding Procedures Have To Do With Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Fraud, where are our, ahem, protectors?
I don't see a problem with advertising a service like that as "up to 100 Mbps", with the details in the fine print.
There probably ought to be some regulation of what "up to" means in cases like this (I'd say 90% availability would be a reasonable rule.)
On the post: What Inefficient Airline Boarding Procedures Have To Do With Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Fraud, where are our, ahem, protectors?
On the post: What Inefficient Airline Boarding Procedures Have To Do With Net Neutrality
Re: Fraud, where are our, ahem, protectors?
But. There are cases (and Internet access speed is one) where selling access to a resource pool ("up to" some limited rate of consumption) is reasonable.
Suppose it costs $1/Mbps/month to provide Internet service.
Under your "100%" scheme, providing a 100 Mbps service will cost $100/month.
But for $10/month I can provision a 1000 Mbps line to serve 100 houses and offer (no fraud involved):
* 100% of the time you get 10 Mbps or more.
* 90% of the time you get 100 Mbps or more.
* 1% of the time you get 1000 Mbps.
What do you find wrong with that?
On the post: What Inefficient Airline Boarding Procedures Have To Do With Net Neutrality
Re: There's a much better explanation...
On the post: How Corporate Sovereignty Threatens Democracy
Re: Re: Re: This is bad.
A court of law.
On the post: Snowden Asks Putin Live On TV If Russia Carries Out Mass Surveillance; But Why?
Snowden has balls of titanium
But to tease the dragon that's sheltering you...wow.
I can't see any motive other than to setup Putin as a liar.
On the post: Washington Post Editorial Board Deploys A Bunch Of Bad Arguments In Its Defense Of The Comcast Merger
The problem is not the merger
Just try to set up your own cable company - you'll find out about:
* Permission to run wires
* Rules from state utility commissions
* Regulations from the FCC
Those are just broad categories. And the regulators who issue those rules have been bought by the incumbents, one way or another (as happens in every regulated industry).
Expecting the same regulators and politicians who have been enabling the closed market for cable services to suddenly start caring about consumers is ridiculous.
Google has the right approach - break into the market with big dollars and big marketing to overcome political resistance. But that is hard.
But focusing on the merger is allowing the bad guys to distract us from the real problem - barriers to entry in the market.
On the post: How Corporate Sovereignty Threatens Democracy
Re: This is bad.
Every rule & regulation creates winners and losers.
We want the legislature to pass laws that create net positive effects - the benefits should be larger than the costs.
Some laws spread costs and benefits pretty evenly - no compensation is needed for those. But others concentrate costs on a few, for the benefit of the public at large. In those cases compensation for the losers seems only fair.
If you can't afford to pay the compensation, that's a sign that you've got a bad law - the benefits are supposed to be bigger than the costs.
On the post: Lavabit Loses Its Appeal For Mucking Up Basic Procedural Issues Early On
Re:If you're providing "secure" services, you should *ALREADY* have such legal help lined up.
The result here is a shame, but I don't blame the court too much. Lavabit screwed up big time.
Anyone running a service whose operation is likely to frustrate the authorities (even if that's not the intent, and legal and legitimate as it may be) needs to have good legal help a single phone call away from day 1.
If you don't have that, you're not serious about it.
On the post: Judge Richard Posner's Ruling In Wacky 'Banana Lady' Case Highlights Just How Wrong Judge Kozinski Was About Copyright
Re: tangible medium of expression
If a photographer does it, the copyright on that would be owned by the photographer. Not her.
Next >>