Competition and unified standards can work in harmony. They are not mutually exclusive. I will also acknowledge that a standard can become obsolete and needs to be tossed. Even though a standard may become obsolete, competitors developing the next generation of technology can still work together to develop a new unified standard.
The HD-DVD versus the Blue Ray DVD format war, I believe, represents the downside of "competition" as the solution for implementing the next level of technology. True, the consumer is being given a "choice", but the consumer has been slow to adopt the technology, and bickering amongst the developers of the technologies concerning DRM schemes has delayed the introduction of the new technology into the marketplace.
Finally, what about the loser in a format war? All the equipment becomes junk. This can a significant cost to both the individual and society.
A unified standard, can offer improved competition since it would allow many manufacturers to produce products based on the unified standard and will probably encourage incremental innovation.
Occasionally Anonymous Coward is correct. Everyone who posts here is a content creator and is entitled to copyright "ownership".
On to a new point. Unfortunately, the copyright debate and filtering overlooks significant policy issues that I hope can be focused on.
First, those advocating filtering have not disclosed how their magical filter will know if the content is protected by copyright. What is to stop someone from slapping on a copyright flag for Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"? This book was published in 1776 and is in the public domain.
Second, suppose an "illegal" copyright flag is used, how do those advocating filtering propose to have this situation corrected?
For the sake of argument, lets assume that "filtering" can be deployed to protect content that has a legitimate copyright. To assure that the rule of law works, those who abuse the copyright flag should be severely fined. If you can fine college students for unauthorized downloads, then content providers should also be fined for abusing copyright. Fair is fair.
The intent of copyright is NOT to provide adequate compensation. For example, you could write a book. Your work may be copyrighted, but if no one buys it you won't get any adequate compensation. Starving artist anyone? Copyright allows you for a limited period of time an opportunity to try to make some money.
The original purpose of copyright was to encourage the development of works that further progress for the social good, not to compensate the author. Copyright today has degenerated to a toll-booth for generating revenue.
Promoting progress means that your work furthers some social good. "Protecting" the author is NOT the intent of copyright. What copyright does is give an a author a LIMITED monopoly to obtain revenue if his/her work furthers "progress".
By way of an extreme example, if a work was deemed not to further "progress", it would not qualify for copyright protection. I wonder, if anyone has successfully overturned a copyright claim by asserting that the work does not further "progress"???? (Yes, I realize that "progress" is very vague and subjective and would lead to all sorts of slippery slope comments.)
I guess, we might as well give-up voting since no voting system is perfect. Again, the logical extreme card is being played.
I fully agree that some voting systems are better than others. I also have said that Diebold voting systems seem to suck.
We seem to have a witch hunt that is finding all voting systems defective, no surprise there, but it also precludes the fact that we have to vote and we do have to us a voting system. Based on negative hype being repeated over and over again with little progress in actually implementing a more "perfect" system - the issue is overblown.
The "line" is the program that manages the voting tallying. DMV Database etc. It's absurd to extend the "line" to some low probability logical extreme and to then assert that a proposed solution is somehow unworkable.
Every method of voting is susceptible to some sort of manipulation. This issue is being overblown.
Nevertheless, it appears to me that Dilbert (comic strip) must be working at Diebold. From what I have been reading their voting machines are over-priced security risks.
When a government buys any product, such as a voting machine, the source code should be in the public domain and available for public inspection. I wish governments would refuse to do business with companies that will not disclose the source code.
Whenever a public agency buys a product, such as voting machines and red light cameras, the software to run such systems must be made public. PERIOD.
If Diebold does not want to divulge this information, Diebold should not bid on government contracts.
As I have followed the Diebold saga, the story is strait out of the Dilbert comic strip. What is unfortunate about the Diebold saga is that it appears that governments (in their ignorance) are paying premium prices for what is essentially an off-the-shelf commodity product, your standard computer.
Circa 2000 the City of San Diego, California got into trouble with its red light camera program. It appears that the timing of the yellow light was reduced so that more people could be ticketed. The City of San Diego had a "profit" sharing agreement with the camera vendor. Who was responsible for this timing "adjustment", I don't know. But like a lot of tech debates, such as net neutrality, hard to detect and prove issues such as timing or network management are silently "tweaked" by the perpetrators to benefit their revenue enhancement at the expense of unknowing consumers.
In summary, TheNewspaper.com wrote: "San Diego Wants to Adjust Cameras to Issue More Tickets
San Diego, California will shorten grace periods to make more money from red light cameras that have increased accidents in the city.
Since they were first installed in 1998 red light cameras in San Diego have never reduced accidents, but they have generated millions for the city -- $16,279,772 until a Superior Court declared the program illegal in 2001. The city recently restarted ticketing, but officials are not satisfied with the amount of money they have been raising. In response, Mayor Jerry Sanders is now proposing either to drop the program entirely or adjust camera settings to trap more motorists at stoplights.
Mayor Sanders told KGTV television that he wants to reduce the amount of time allowed after a light changes from yellow to red before a ticket is issued. This "grace time," according to a 2002 audit, ranged from 0.3 to 0.5 seconds in San Diego. Sanders proposes to drop it to a lightning-quick 0.1 seconds to issue even more citations and bolster the program's income.
"We see about a 9 percent decrease for red light runners," Sanders said. "Most cities using it more widely with a 0.1-second delay actually see up to a 40 percent decrease."
In 2000, motorists caught San Diego using illegally short yellow times at intersections that had red light cameras. Court action forced the city quietly to increase the yellow time at a number of intersections with the number of violations instantly dropping. At Mission Bay and Grand Avenue, for example, violations dropped from a rate of 363.4 per 100 enforcement hours to an average of 42.2 the day after the yellow was lengthened.
Court documents from 2001 proved that, excluding the intersections with increased yellow time, every red light camera intersection in the city had an increase in accidents, or saw no benefit. San Diego Police Chief David Bejarano confirmed this in an interview on Nightline: "And it's true in a few intersections we found a few more accidents than prior to the red light photo enforcement. At some intersections we saw no change at all, and at several intersections we actually saw an increase in traffic accidents." Accidents have also not dropped under the current red light program."
Copyright is sliding down the slippery slope. Applying the law to subjective content means that justice belongs to the "deep-pockets". I can see it now, lawsuits where a three button designer is sued by a two button designer claiming that the use of two buttons is infringement but the three button designer claims it is substantially different.
The statement "Unfortunately, though, the court felt otherwise, and decided that just because the company had registered the copyright on the document, that's all the evidence it needed to say the document was covered by copyright" is chilling in its implications. Just because something is "registered" it is not proof of an ownership right. This is akin to patent examiners issuing patents based on the submission without doing the prior-art research. One would think that the Court would examine the validity of the copyright claim.
By the way, did the court publish its opinion and can it be posted here?
The call for "increased competition" has allure and mass appeal, but will it work?
Logically, competition means that the sellers have to earn their customers business. Therefore, they wouldn't want to screw them over. But is this logic valid?
I can't answer that. Based on my observations, certain industries seem immune to enhancing the customer experience. Specifically the cell phone industry. Simply put, if every company in a supposedly competitive industry group uses underhanded business practices and they are making money, there is no reason for them to be honest. Given this scenario, increased competition will solve nothing.
Mass market - This seems to be an overlooked economic concept. We are a large country, not to mention the rest of the world. A certain percentage of our business is really done on a random basis. Especially with the internet. It may be possible for a company that sells crappy products to survive based simply on the random selection of customer who do not know better. (Not everyone does good due diligence before buying.)
Technological sophistication - Most of us do not have the technological sophistication to discover technological abuses. We depend on the altruism of those few who have the technological sophistication to expose these abuses. Again, if companies hide their technological abuses, increased competition does not mean much in terms of providing the customer with a better experience.
We hear the companies moan, do not regulate us, trust us. As Anonymous Coward points out, the whole game is obfuscation not clarity. If companies lack the honesty and guts to be transparent in their operations then they deserve regulation.
You miss the point. The prior version of windows, WindowsXP had the capability to play HD content. When M$ introduced VISTA they essentialyl "disabled" the ability of older computers to play HD content. This is similar to replacing PlaysForSure with the incompatible Zune Player. Disabling a consumers hardware (planned obsolescence) to "promote" sales is plain wrong.
Many years ago I upgraded my computer system and I ran across a Microsoft website advertising HD content along with a paltry selection. Then Microsoft introduced VISTA. With the introduction of VISTA, it appears that the ability/availability to play HD content on WindowsXP was purposely being left behind similar to PlaysForSure.
Since HD content for WindowsXP never caught on; its disappearance, I guess, was not newsworthy. It is an unfortunate silence. I guess the content producers are purposely avoiding this market. Technically, we should be able to see HD content on our WindowsXP computers, but this issue just does not seem to have any "traction". Any thoughts?
We were a customer of Sprint, until we were screwed over by them. Relative to this post, four years ago we received notice of a class action settlement for Sprint's improper billing. The settlement, $15.00 off our next Sprint bill. Since we where no longer Sprint customers, we got nothing.
The lesson - even when a company is uncovered doing an illegal act, they still find a way to keep your money!!!
Regretfully, we seem to be evolving into a society where large content distributors seem to have the unilateral authority to manipulate how you receive content, to label you a thief, and to penalize you.
Your "legitimate" webpage, dream-on.
The Sony rootkit debacle and the HP Pretexting scandal demonstrate that they believe they can trespass onto your turf (to protect their business) with impunity since you (the consumer) have no rights.
On the post: Which Is More Important For Innovation: A Standard Platform Or Competition?
False Choice
The HD-DVD versus the Blue Ray DVD format war, I believe, represents the downside of "competition" as the solution for implementing the next level of technology. True, the consumer is being given a "choice", but the consumer has been slow to adopt the technology, and bickering amongst the developers of the technologies concerning DRM schemes has delayed the introduction of the new technology into the marketplace.
Finally, what about the loser in a format war? All the equipment becomes junk. This can a significant cost to both the individual and society.
A unified standard, can offer improved competition since it would allow many manufacturers to produce products based on the unified standard and will probably encourage incremental innovation.
On the post: Why AT&T's Plans To Filter The Internet Will Only Do More Harm To AT&T (And Everyone Else)
Copyright Ownership
On to a new point. Unfortunately, the copyright debate and filtering overlooks significant policy issues that I hope can be focused on.
First, those advocating filtering have not disclosed how their magical filter will know if the content is protected by copyright. What is to stop someone from slapping on a copyright flag for Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"? This book was published in 1776 and is in the public domain.
Second, suppose an "illegal" copyright flag is used, how do those advocating filtering propose to have this situation corrected?
For the sake of argument, lets assume that "filtering" can be deployed to protect content that has a legitimate copyright. To assure that the rule of law works, those who abuse the copyright flag should be severely fined. If you can fine college students for unauthorized downloads, then content providers should also be fined for abusing copyright. Fair is fair.
Back to reality. "Filtering" is an abomination.
On the post: Why J.K. Rowling Shouldn't Get To Prevent Harry Potter Guidebook Publication
Capitalism = Competion
On the post: Defiant Amazon Will Pay Fines Rather Than Give Up Free Shipping In France
Where are the Lawyers?
On the post: Do You Actually Understand What Copyright Is For?
Adequate Compensation is Incorrect
The original purpose of copyright was to encourage the development of works that further progress for the social good, not to compensate the author. Copyright today has degenerated to a toll-booth for generating revenue.
On the post: Do You Actually Understand What Copyright Is For?
Promoting Progress
By way of an extreme example, if a work was deemed not to further "progress", it would not qualify for copyright protection. I wonder, if anyone has successfully overturned a copyright claim by asserting that the work does not further "progress"???? (Yes, I realize that "progress" is very vague and subjective and would lead to all sorts of slippery slope comments.)
On the post: No One Will Trust Elections So Long As Questionable Voting Machines Are Used
Re: Re: All Voting Machines are Questionable
I fully agree that some voting systems are better than others. I also have said that Diebold voting systems seem to suck.
We seem to have a witch hunt that is finding all voting systems defective, no surprise there, but it also precludes the fact that we have to vote and we do have to us a voting system. Based on negative hype being repeated over and over again with little progress in actually implementing a more "perfect" system - the issue is overblown.
On the post: No One Will Trust Elections So Long As Questionable Voting Machines Are Used
Re: Re: All Voting Machines are Questionable
On the post: No One Will Trust Elections So Long As Questionable Voting Machines Are Used
All Voting Machines are Questionable
Nevertheless, it appears to me that Dilbert (comic strip) must be working at Diebold. From what I have been reading their voting machines are over-priced security risks.
When a government buys any product, such as a voting machine, the source code should be in the public domain and available for public inspection. I wish governments would refuse to do business with companies that will not disclose the source code.
On the post: Would Diebold/Premier Actually Open Source Its E-Voting Software?
Into the Public Domain
If Diebold does not want to divulge this information, Diebold should not bid on government contracts.
As I have followed the Diebold saga, the story is strait out of the Dilbert comic strip. What is unfortunate about the Diebold saga is that it appears that governments (in their ignorance) are paying premium prices for what is essentially an off-the-shelf commodity product, your standard computer.
On the post: National Motorists Association Challenges Cities To Prove Red-Light Cameras Are Safer
Revenue Enancement
In summary, TheNewspaper.com wrote: "San Diego Wants to Adjust Cameras to Issue More Tickets
San Diego, California will shorten grace periods to make more money from red light cameras that have increased accidents in the city.
Since they were first installed in 1998 red light cameras in San Diego have never reduced accidents, but they have generated millions for the city -- $16,279,772 until a Superior Court declared the program illegal in 2001. The city recently restarted ticketing, but officials are not satisfied with the amount of money they have been raising. In response, Mayor Jerry Sanders is now proposing either to drop the program entirely or adjust camera settings to trap more motorists at stoplights.
Mayor Sanders told KGTV television that he wants to reduce the amount of time allowed after a light changes from yellow to red before a ticket is issued. This "grace time," according to a 2002 audit, ranged from 0.3 to 0.5 seconds in San Diego. Sanders proposes to drop it to a lightning-quick 0.1 seconds to issue even more citations and bolster the program's income.
"We see about a 9 percent decrease for red light runners," Sanders said. "Most cities using it more widely with a 0.1-second delay actually see up to a 40 percent decrease."
In 2000, motorists caught San Diego using illegally short yellow times at intersections that had red light cameras. Court action forced the city quietly to increase the yellow time at a number of intersections with the number of violations instantly dropping. At Mission Bay and Grand Avenue, for example, violations dropped from a rate of 363.4 per 100 enforcement hours to an average of 42.2 the day after the yellow was lengthened.
Court documents from 2001 proved that, excluding the intersections with increased yellow time, every red light camera intersection in the city had an increase in accidents, or saw no benefit. San Diego Police Chief David Bejarano confirmed this in an interview on Nightline: "And it's true in a few intersections we found a few more accidents than prior to the red light photo enforcement. At some intersections we saw no change at all, and at several intersections we actually saw an increase in traffic accidents." Accidents have also not dropped under the current red light program."
On the post: EU Looks To Destroy Fashion Innovation; Begins Enforcing Fashion Copyrights
Fashion is Subjective
On the post: Copyright, Defamation, Bloggers, DMCA, Safe Harbors, Cease-And-Desists And Anonymity... Oh My!
Where is the Due Process
By the way, did the court publish its opinion and can it be posted here?
On the post: Anything Goes Wrong Online? Yell 'Net Neutrality' As Loud As Possible!
Too Simplistic - Simply an appeal to the masses
Logically, competition means that the sellers have to earn their customers business. Therefore, they wouldn't want to screw them over. But is this logic valid?
I can't answer that. Based on my observations, certain industries seem immune to enhancing the customer experience. Specifically the cell phone industry. Simply put, if every company in a supposedly competitive industry group uses underhanded business practices and they are making money, there is no reason for them to be honest. Given this scenario, increased competition will solve nothing.
Mass market - This seems to be an overlooked economic concept. We are a large country, not to mention the rest of the world. A certain percentage of our business is really done on a random basis. Especially with the internet. It may be possible for a company that sells crappy products to survive based simply on the random selection of customer who do not know better. (Not everyone does good due diligence before buying.)
Technological sophistication - Most of us do not have the technological sophistication to discover technological abuses. We depend on the altruism of those few who have the technological sophistication to expose these abuses. Again, if companies hide their technological abuses, increased competition does not mean much in terms of providing the customer with a better experience.
On the post: Huge Phone Bills And Unsuspecting Customers; When Will Mobile Operators Communicate Clearly?
The Network Neutrality/Regulation Spin
On the post: PlaysForWhatNow? Microsoft 'ReBrands' Misnamed DRM
Re: Re: Re #8 Steve R
On the post: France Says Non! To Amazon's Free Shipping
There is Always a Solution
With pay shipping the product costs $18.00 + $2.00 s/h.
If one is really wants to stretch the rules, the shipping charge could be $0.00 which is not "free" shipping.
On the post: PlaysForWhatNow? Microsoft 'ReBrands' Misnamed DRM
High Definition Content on WindowsXP - Dead?
Since HD content for WindowsXP never caught on; its disappearance, I guess, was not newsworthy. It is an unfortunate silence. I guess the content producers are purposely avoiding this market. Technically, we should be able to see HD content on our WindowsXP computers, but this issue just does not seem to have any "traction". Any thoughts?
On the post: Sprint Takes Away 3 Unnecessary Fees, Replaces Them With 2 New Unnecessary Fees
Sprint Bad
The lesson - even when a company is uncovered doing an illegal act, they still find a way to keep your money!!!
On the post: ISP Inserts Its Own Messages Into Google
Re: I believe that this tactic is illegal
Your "legitimate" webpage, dream-on.
The Sony rootkit debacle and the HP Pretexting scandal demonstrate that they believe they can trespass onto your turf (to protect their business) with impunity since you (the consumer) have no rights.
Next >>