"Record Labels Put Out Misleading Study Trying To Get ISPs To Setup Broken Music Streaming Services"
If what you say is true, that the labels want ISPs to set up exclusive deals with online music companies, then the title really should have been:
Record Labels Put Out Misleading Study Trying To Get ISPs To Block Legal Music Services
If your interpretation is right, then as an example, an ISP should enter into an exclusive deal with Amazon to sell music, at the exclusion of iTunes. And to avoid being a "dumb pipe" the ISP should block iTunes because it wasn't willing to pay up.
What about the manufacturers of aglets, which are on the end of shoe laces, which hold shoes on the feet of criminals, who run away after committing their crimes?
"the ability for a libeler to widely disseminate, potentially to hundreds of millions of readers, their libel"
Guns, stairs, elevator shafts, knifes, and automobiles have made it easier to kill, but yet we still hold the murders criminally responsible.
"They should find some other way to generate income..."
Why should Google or anyone find some other way to generate income merely because of one court verdict? Does Microsoft give up every time it loses a lawsuit? Does Exxon give up every time it causes a disaster? Good things happen and bad things happen. If we wait for a perfect business model where bad things never happen, no one will ever make any money.
"I can easily imagine..."
Sorry to say this, but your imagination and five cents will at best get you a nickle.
What if the video was posted by a whistle-blowing student to bring attention to the bullies that committed the crime? In that case, wouldn't Google be in the right because it provided an outlet to expose the truth?
No, I'm not arguing that we should look at the intention of the posting before determining if charges should be brought against the service provider.
What I'm saying is that if we have to look at the intention behind the video to determine whether it should be allowed to be posted, it should not be Google's fault for allowing it to be posted because it is simply impossible for anyone to intuit why it was posted.
Videos are neither immoral or moral. They are amoral. Someone might believe that the video was bad because it provided an outlet for a horrible crime. Someone else might think the video was great because it exposed a horrible crime. There is no right answer. And it shouldn't be a service provider's job to determine the answer.
"But the true underlying sin was that he spent so much time rewriting in the first place"
I can't help but be reminded of IBM's deal with Microsoft to create an operating system. IBM paid Microsoft by the number of lines of code. In other words, you earned less by writing tight and efficient code and were rewarded by writing bloated code. Microsoft tried to explain this to IBM but, that's the way IBM did it and they wouldn't budge.
I'm sure some of the bloggers at the New York Times understand that its utterly ridiculous to rewrite what has already been written. But the old fogies in charge won't change because their way is the way it's always been done.
"Yet more indications that Apple no longer thinks it can really compete in the marketplace."
I think this is Apple competing in the marketplace. There is no government intrusion here. Apple is not running to the ITC or suing. It is telling its business partners, if you want our deals, you can't make certain deals with our competitors. The labels are free to agree or to tell Apple to frick off. These types of contracts occur all the time in the real world.
On the post: Record Labels Put Out Misleading Study Trying To Get ISPs To Setup Broken Music Streaming Services
If what you say is true, that the labels want ISPs to set up exclusive deals with online music companies, then the title really should have been:
If your interpretation is right, then as an example, an ISP should enter into an exclusive deal with Amazon to sell music, at the exclusion of iTunes. And to avoid being a "dumb pipe" the ISP should block iTunes because it wasn't willing to pay up.
On the post: US Government Working With Pharma Companies To Raise Drug Prices In Other Countries
The pharmaceutical companies are getting exactly what they paid for.
On the post: White House Can't Stream Biden's Speech; So Uses Justin.tv Instead
Re:
On the post: White House Can't Stream Biden's Speech; So Uses Justin.tv Instead
It simply does not matter what Biden understands. It's what the people who are paying for his campaign want.
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Re: Re: Google Italy Verdict
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as I know the kids who committed the act were brought to justice. Problem solved.
"And how did you determine whether the person was innocent?"
Jury trial? I have no idea how Italy tries its criminal cases or what the burden of proof is.
"Maybe..."
All your maybes and hypothetical questions only prove my point is that there is no right answer and that videos in and of themselves are amoral.
"Who determines all these little intricacies?"
Usually it's society acting through its government body.
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Google Italy Verdict
Guns, stairs, elevator shafts, knifes, and automobiles have made it easier to kill, but yet we still hold the murders criminally responsible.
"They should find some other way to generate income..."
Why should Google or anyone find some other way to generate income merely because of one court verdict? Does Microsoft give up every time it loses a lawsuit? Does Exxon give up every time it causes a disaster? Good things happen and bad things happen. If we wait for a perfect business model where bad things never happen, no one will ever make any money.
"I can easily imagine..."
Sorry to say this, but your imagination and five cents will at best get you a nickle.
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Re:
Not really, because actions hurt people. Thus, even though a gun is amoral, if someone uses it to kill an innocent person, it's murder.
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Bring Your Own Irony
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re:
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
No, I'm not arguing that we should look at the intention of the posting before determining if charges should be brought against the service provider.
What I'm saying is that if we have to look at the intention behind the video to determine whether it should be allowed to be posted, it should not be Google's fault for allowing it to be posted because it is simply impossible for anyone to intuit why it was posted.
Videos are neither immoral or moral. They are amoral. Someone might believe that the video was bad because it provided an outlet for a horrible crime. Someone else might think the video was great because it exposed a horrible crime. There is no right answer. And it shouldn't be a service provider's job to determine the answer.
On the post: Print Mindset vs. Internet Mindset: Do You Link? Do You Credit Sources?
Re: need a new language
On the post: Print Mindset vs. Internet Mindset: Do You Link? Do You Credit Sources?
I can't help but be reminded of IBM's deal with Microsoft to create an operating system. IBM paid Microsoft by the number of lines of code. In other words, you earned less by writing tight and efficient code and were rewarded by writing bloated code. Microsoft tried to explain this to IBM but, that's the way IBM did it and they wouldn't budge.
I'm sure some of the bloggers at the New York Times understand that its utterly ridiculous to rewrite what has already been written. But the old fogies in charge won't change because their way is the way it's always been done.
On the post: Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites
Open letter to web advertisers
First, I hate flash. I despise it. I hate the annoying audio and the seizure inducing graphics.
Second, I hate javascript crap such as popups, graphics that force you to click or float around the screen, or the inability to right click.
So with Firefox I turn off flash and javascript for most of my surfing. I can quickly turn them on when I need them.
So if your ads use either flash or javascript I won't see them. And I don't feel guilty at all about it.
On the post: If You're Going To Sue For Patent Infringement, It Helps To Say What Actually Infringes
Re: Re:
On the post: If You're Going To Sue For Patent Infringement, It Helps To Say What Actually Infringes
On the post: Cyberwar Or Moral Panic? Beware Of Ex-Politicians Screaming About Cyberthreats
It's a good thing we have unbiased and professional news sources such as the Washington Post to help consultants scam the public.
On the post: South Australia Attorney General Demands $20,000 From Web Commenter Who Called Him A Crook
Here's a sample Dean McQuillan could use:
On the post: Apple May Anger The Antitrust Gods: Pressuring Labels To Stop Participating In Amazon Daily MP3 Deals
I think this is Apple competing in the marketplace. There is no government intrusion here. Apple is not running to the ITC or suing. It is telling its business partners, if you want our deals, you can't make certain deals with our competitors. The labels are free to agree or to tell Apple to frick off. These types of contracts occur all the time in the real world.
On the post: How UK Chiropractors' Attempt To Silence One Critic Created The Backlash That May Change Chiropractics In The UK
In honor of South Park, let's call it the Mecha-Streisand Effect.
Next >>