The internet has given us unprecedented power in being able to do research. On the downside, the "fake" hits that are nothing more than marketing ploys. When I did a look-up on my grandmother, a link popped up announcing the availability of her personal "diary".
It would be nice if these dubious hits could be filtered out. When I search for a product, I would like to see a real review, not a phony review that is a disguised sales pitch. But then we get into the slippery slope issue of what constitutes "good" versus "bad" information. Oh well!
I routinely see TV news reporters throw in spurious comments about the economic "damage" of piracy to keep this concept on the public's consciousness. I assume most of these comments are actually "planted" by the content industry through the so-called press releases that are simply regurgitated by the media.
I seriously doubt any of these news anchors will even hear of this or even consider it newsworthy enough to report on. How unfortunate that the hypocrisy will go unreported.
At least there is a bit of irony in the BSA going after Sony BMG. I am reminded of a lawyer joke about professional courtesy. Seems that the BSA would give Sony BMG a professional pass.
1. If you have a car and buy parts from a third party to make your car run better, that is OK. Now if you buy a soundcard and want to install a third party application that is somehow considered a violation of so-called soundcard manufacturer's "intellectual property". Once you buy a piece of hardware, be it a car or a soundcard, you should have a right to tinker with it. Event to the extent of selling the "improvement". (Look at all the auto parts dealers selling third party parts.)
2. It seems to me that it would be unethical for Creative to remove posts from their website on this issue. (Even if it is considered legal.) I am surprised that his action has not been highlighed on TechDirt as a form of censorship.
For a society to function we need to have mutual respect. One way this is expressed, is through our legal system. If the legal system becomes one sided, then civil disobedience surfaces. This is what is happening to EULAs, Patents, and Copyright. The legal system is no longer a level playing field treating each party fairly.
In a simplistic sense - why should anyone respect another's so-called rights if they blatantly intend to deprive you of your rights.
This music subscription issue points to the "bigger" issue of how all business seek to compete. Businesses seek to compete with proprietary niche approaches rather than selling the "best" product or service in an "open economy".
To phrase this differently companies seem choose to compete in the following proprietary manner: iTunes versus Zune OR HDDVD versus BlueRay. Competition should be based on the competitors agreeing to one type of MP3 Payer or one type of HD DVD player, THEN competing on who makes the best product and provides the best customer service.
To reiterate, those in charge of marketing are addicted like drug addicts in a self-destructive death spiral. The only fix (solution) they see is even greater marketing efforts to push propriety niche products of limited viability.
Several years ago, one of the movie theaters that we went to put up a big big big sign proclaiming on how they listened to their customers and how they were improving their service to us.
The improvement => They implemented a policy to charge for children attending with their parents to minimize "disruptive" behavior.
No other real customer satisfaction improvements to my knowledge were ever implemented.
One new annoyance: commercials. If we see commercials, the price of the tickets should go down. Of course they haven't the movie theaters just pocket the extra revenue.
I propose a more radical view for when the copyright holder "losses" the privilege of copyright. If you throw content out in a public forum for "free" public consumption and others begin to use it (as an incidental use) I don't think that should be considered infringement. Especially if the content is being used as a marketing tool (soliciting business).
I will agree, that one would not have the right to put her image on a poster and to sell the poster without her consent.
Of course I am NOT a lawyer and this approach may not comply with how the law is interpreted today. Its time for the law to recognize that if content is being tossed out by the content creator for easy public consumption that this would constitute a "gift" to the public.
Even though I was not in the market for a new computer, when I was in Best Buy I asked if I could buy a computer without the operating system so that I would be able to install Linux. The salesperson said that was not possible. We should not be forced to pay for unwanted components.
The computer store where I have bought my computers does offer the option of buying a computer with a choice of operating systems, including the no-operating system choice with the appropriate discount.
On a slightly different bloatware topic; last night my firewall reported that an unknown iTunes program was attempting to access the internet. While this program was innocuous it does point to the continued practice for unknown programs to be silently loaded on your computer and to operate without your knowledge.
Considering how many of these companies want to protect their so-called "intellectual property", if they give this stuff away (install it on your computer without your permission), it should be considered in the public domain. They have no right to pass a usage liability on you if they give you the program without your permission. Its a "gift".
My residual concern is that we do not live in a rationale world. When people become desensitized to advertising, the Pavlovian response of the marketing department is to advertise more, not to rethink how to re-capture the reader.
I was considering making this point. Few people realize that the "rising" price of commodities such as gold, oil and the rise of the Euro is a demonstration that the dollar is falling in value. Our deficit spending is finally catching up to us. Our hubris, however, will not allow us to admit it.
The most obvious implication is "regulation". Companies scream please don't regulate us, let the free market work. Unfortunately, once again, companies (in this case the financial institutions) have demonstrated that they lack the self-control to operate in an open and honest fashion. Short term greed for corporate managers over long term sustainable corporate growth.
In the tech world, the current debate over net neutrality is similar from the "regulation" perspective. Companies such as Comcast and AT&T say "don't regulate us". The free market will "guarantee" that the ISPs will not "interfere" with internet packets. Well Comcast has already been "caught" "shaping" packet flows. As these corporate "mistakes" become exposed and accumulate, the natural "knee jerk" reaction will be to impose corrective regulation.
Like the financial institutions hiding the true value of the collateralized debt from the public, the tech industry is hiding the real implications of how the unregulated net neutrality will be managed by them. It has taken nearly five years for the growing credit bubble to burst. Now that it has, regulatory legislation will soon follow.
In terms of the tech world (net neutrality) it is probably too soon for the "bubble" to figuratively explode. When it does, regulation will soon follow.
Most people agree that so-called "intellectual property" deserves "limited" protection for a short period of time.
The problem is that the pro-intellectual property crowd talks of "fair protection" but neglects to point out that they have been aggrandizing their rights at the expense of the rights of the users of that content. The intellectual property crowd is attempting to charge you for virtually any use of the content you bought.
Want to play a region 1 DVD in region 2, pay again. Want to transfer your music from an iPod to an Zune, pay again. These are "fair use" activities that a consumer is entitled to. The "theft" of these consumer rights is never mentioned by the pro-intellectual crowd. Very disingenuous of them.
Like many of the commenters above, in the name of equity, if the "holder" of intellectual property can be paid over and over again for the use of the same product, I should be paid over and over again for my physical labor. After all property is property. Right?
When you buy a computer, you are buying "TWO" things. One is the hardware the other is the operating system. You should be able to buy these two things independently. (Yes, I know that bundling software can offer the customer more, but what if the customer does not want the bundle?)
For example, if you don't want WINDOWS on should be able to demand that it not be included in the purchase price of the software. Unfortunately, the way computers are sold you are forced to buy both, as well as all the trial junk, at the time of purchase. So far I only know of two vendors (small companies) who are willing to sell you the computer without the operating system.
Stores, such as Walmart, Staples, and Best Buy need to sell, at least some of their computers, without an operating system so you can install your own.
Some people are color blind, so they can't perceive colors. Some people are economically challenged, like the color blind person they can not perceive certain economic (colors) principles. Specifically, that people can innovate and invent without the necessity of patents. Historically, most of our progress in the arts and science has occurred in the absence of patents since the concept of patent only recently metamorphosed into its parasitic adult stage.
Getting rid of the myth that patents lead to innovation will be akin to teaching a color blind person to "see" color. A highly unlikely scenario. (Now my obligatory politically correct apology if I accidentally offended a person who is color blind. And yes there are varying degrees of color blindness.)
On the post: State Sues Unclaimed Money Site After Finding It Told Wile E. Coyote He Had Unclaimed Money
On-Going Scam
It would be nice if these dubious hits could be filtered out. When I search for a product, I would like to see a real review, not a phony review that is a disguised sales pitch. But then we get into the slippery slope issue of what constitutes "good" versus "bad" information. Oh well!
On the post: Sony BMG Caught Pirating Software
Will the Public Ever Learn of this Hypocrisy?
I seriously doubt any of these news anchors will even hear of this or even consider it newsworthy enough to report on. How unfortunate that the hypocrisy will go unreported.
At least there is a bit of irony in the BSA going after Sony BMG. I am reminded of a lawyer joke about professional courtesy. Seems that the BSA would give Sony BMG a professional pass.
On the post: Creative Labs Stops Guy From Making Its Technology Work Better
Two Points
1. If you have a car and buy parts from a third party to make your car run better, that is OK. Now if you buy a soundcard and want to install a third party application that is somehow considered a violation of so-called soundcard manufacturer's "intellectual property". Once you buy a piece of hardware, be it a car or a soundcard, you should have a right to tinker with it. Event to the extent of selling the "improvement". (Look at all the auto parts dealers selling third party parts.)
2. It seems to me that it would be unethical for Creative to remove posts from their website on this issue. (Even if it is considered legal.) I am surprised that his action has not been highlighed on TechDirt as a form of censorship.
On the post: Companies Don't Even Read Their Own EULAs Carefully
The Rule of Law
In a simplistic sense - why should anyone respect another's so-called rights if they blatantly intend to deprive you of your rights.
On the post: Recorded Sound? Yeah, Edison Didn't Invent That Either
Re: recording, not playback
New York Times article.
So when is the RIAA going to start paying royalties to the French?
On the post: Comcast Realizes Blocking By Protocol Is A Problem; Asks BitTorrent For Some Help
NY Times - Comcast to Stop Hampering File-Sharing
On the post: Why Sony-BMG's Music Subscription Idea Won't Work
Obsolete thinking of How to Compete
To phrase this differently companies seem choose to compete in the following proprietary manner: iTunes versus Zune OR HDDVD versus BlueRay. Competition should be based on the competitors agreeing to one type of MP3 Payer or one type of HD DVD player, THEN competing on who makes the best product and provides the best customer service.
To reiterate, those in charge of marketing are addicted like drug addicts in a self-destructive death spiral. The only fix (solution) they see is even greater marketing efforts to push propriety niche products of limited viability.
On the post: Movie Theaters Finally Realizing They Need To Compete With, Not Whine About, Home Theaters
A False Benefit
The improvement => They implemented a policy to charge for children attending with their parents to minimize "disruptive" behavior.
No other real customer satisfaction improvements to my knowledge were ever implemented.
One new annoyance: commercials. If we see commercials, the price of the tickets should go down. Of course they haven't the movie theaters just pocket the extra revenue.
On the post: DOJ Finally Approves XM-Sirius Merger
About Time
On the post: Columbia Professor Latest To Go On The Patent Offensive
Academics and Patents
Did she do this research under salary that was paid for by the university?
If this research received funding through a Federal grant, there should be no patent. The technology should be in the public domain.
If she did this research as a paid university employee the patents should belong to the university.
On the post: Is Printing Call Girl Photos Fair Use?
Into the Public Domain
I will agree, that one would not have the right to put her image on a poster and to sell the poster without her consent.
Of course I am NOT a lawyer and this approach may not comply with how the law is interpreted today. Its time for the law to recognize that if content is being tossed out by the content creator for easy public consumption that this would constitute a "gift" to the public.
On the post: If Consumers Will Pay $50 To Remove It, What's It Doing There In The First Place?
Only the Computer Itslef
The computer store where I have bought my computers does offer the option of buying a computer with a choice of operating systems, including the no-operating system choice with the appropriate discount.
On a slightly different bloatware topic; last night my firewall reported that an unknown iTunes program was attempting to access the internet. While this program was innocuous it does point to the continued practice for unknown programs to be silently loaded on your computer and to operate without your knowledge.
Considering how many of these companies want to protect their so-called "intellectual property", if they give this stuff away (install it on your computer without your permission), it should be considered in the public domain. They have no right to pass a usage liability on you if they give you the program without your permission. Its a "gift".
On the post: If You Don't See The Terms Of Service Until After You Buy, Are They Valid?
Re: Not Valid
No EULA constitutes a valid contract. (despite what some legal beagles may believe.)
On the post: Antigua Says It's Going To Start Ignoring US Copyrights (For Real This Time)
Good for Antigua - Now the reality
On the post: Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising
Marketing is a Drug Addiction
My residual concern is that we do not live in a rationale world. When people become desensitized to advertising, the Pavlovian response of the marketing department is to advertise more, not to rethink how to re-capture the reader.
On the post: JP Morgan Buys Bear Stearns For Pennies On The Dollar; What's It Mean For Tech?
Dollar is undergoing a deevalution
On the post: JP Morgan Buys Bear Stearns For Pennies On The Dollar; What's It Mean For Tech?
Bear Stearns and Tech
In the tech world, the current debate over net neutrality is similar from the "regulation" perspective. Companies such as Comcast and AT&T say "don't regulate us". The free market will "guarantee" that the ISPs will not "interfere" with internet packets. Well Comcast has already been "caught" "shaping" packet flows. As these corporate "mistakes" become exposed and accumulate, the natural "knee jerk" reaction will be to impose corrective regulation.
Like the financial institutions hiding the true value of the collateralized debt from the public, the tech industry is hiding the real implications of how the unregulated net neutrality will be managed by them. It has taken nearly five years for the growing credit bubble to burst. Now that it has, regulatory legislation will soon follow.
In terms of the tech world (net neutrality) it is probably too soon for the "bubble" to figuratively explode. When it does, regulation will soon follow.
On the post: Can Someone Give Michael Eisner A History Lesson On Copyright And Patents?
Re: Re: Information does have property rights
The problem is that the pro-intellectual property crowd talks of "fair protection" but neglects to point out that they have been aggrandizing their rights at the expense of the rights of the users of that content. The intellectual property crowd is attempting to charge you for virtually any use of the content you bought.
Want to play a region 1 DVD in region 2, pay again. Want to transfer your music from an iPod to an Zune, pay again. These are "fair use" activities that a consumer is entitled to. The "theft" of these consumer rights is never mentioned by the pro-intellectual crowd. Very disingenuous of them.
Like many of the commenters above, in the name of equity, if the "holder" of intellectual property can be paid over and over again for the use of the same product, I should be paid over and over again for my physical labor. After all property is property. Right?
On the post: Turns Out The Wal-Mart Crowd Just Isn't That Into Linux
Missing the Point When Buying a Computer
For example, if you don't want WINDOWS on should be able to demand that it not be included in the purchase price of the software. Unfortunately, the way computers are sold you are forced to buy both, as well as all the trial junk, at the time of purchase. So far I only know of two vendors (small companies) who are willing to sell you the computer without the operating system.
Stores, such as Walmart, Staples, and Best Buy need to sell, at least some of their computers, without an operating system so you can install your own.
On the post: Can We Get Rid Of The Myth That More Patents Means More Innovation?
It's a Perception Problem
Getting rid of the myth that patents lead to innovation will be akin to teaching a color blind person to "see" color. A highly unlikely scenario. (Now my obligatory politically correct apology if I accidentally offended a person who is color blind. And yes there are varying degrees of color blindness.)
Next >>