If you're going to appoint an attorney in charge of government copyright policy, the thing to do is to get someone with relevant experience. Would you prefer an attorney whose expertise is in Animal Husbandry to get this job?
And if you think it's one of the "bad guys" instead of one of the "good guys" (girls) getting the job... well, working attorneys in copyright (and other "intellectual property" areas) are usually working to protect and monetize the "property" in question. You'd probably have a tough time coming up with a good list of candidates, with good resumes, for the job who share your ideology (or mine) on the issue.
Someone like Stephan Kinsella would be both qualified and share our sentiments, but I'm sure he doesn't want the job, nor the job him.
Would it have been too much trouble for the author of the Times piece to actually name a place that is prohibiting Kindles? She managed to get in her Charbucks plug without naming any of the villains.
I can't believe large companies would even have to bother with a cold calling strategy. Once you've been in tech a few years (at least this is my experience), hiring of good people mostly happens through word-of-mouth.
I've only gotten cold calls from the most rinky-dink companies.
Companies like Apple, Google, etc. probably already have a good bit of cross-pollination. I just can't see them saying "OK, rev up the phone banks".
The author and many users make it sound like they're acquiring new apps for their phone every few days. I barely acquire apps. In 15 months with my G1 I got a GPS app for when I'm golfing, and two free games for when I'm on an airplane, and that's it.
I mainly use it for phone calls, email, and limited web surfing. I thought most people did.
What is this business model that involves distributing movies for free via p2p and still making a buck? Selling t-shirts? It's slipping my mind right now.
Sirius Satellite Radio rolled out an A La Carte program in 2008 (under pressure from the government), and the number of subscribers that have chosen it is tiny.* Really really tiny. Mel Karmazin grits his teeth every time it's mentioned to him, the high cost it took to implement it and the tiny subscriber adoption.
So it appears many consumers really do like flipping through a zillion channels, for both radio and TV. I'd say it's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming.
*I will say, Sirius does not exactly go out of its way to promote the A La Carte offering. But it does exist.
Adding to the valley's problems is a malfunctioning state government that is shortchanging investment in education and infrastructure.
Maybe part of the problem is not that the California government isn't spending enough money, but that it's spending too much.
as corporations and government make the same decision to free-ride off the investments of others, society suffers the 'tragedy of the commons,' wherein multiple actors operating in their self-interest do harm to the overall public good.
That's not the Tragedy of the Commons. Perhaps the writers at BW should look up the definition of it before using it in an article.
Don't worry, the newspapers aren't phased by this news - in fact, publishers are meeting in San Diego this week to ponder their fate and one of the items on their agenda is "How to recover some of the classified advertising business that has been usurped by Craig's List and others."
There's a simple way to have the best teachers rewarded appropriately - you completely eliminate government schools. The cream will rise to the top in the private-sector schools, as it does now.
But then politicians wouldn't be able to take credit for it.
look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations
Just because Party A is an "ordinary citizen" and Party B is a "big corporation" doesn't mean that Party A should be able to harm Party B with impunity.
NewYorkCountryLawyer, for all the good work he is doing, seems to include verbiage like this in almost every post that makes it to the front page. Over and over... the industry is suing "ordinary folks"... they should stop suing "ordinary folks"... evil big corporation vs. noble, innocent ordinary folks...
I happen to be in the camp that the historical reasons for copyright are no longer extant and that massive reform should be done. But this verbiage disturbs me.
Our legal system should provide facilities for party A to address grievances with party B, whether B is big and A is small, or vice versa. It shouldn't be the goal (as the verbiage seems to suggest) that the legal system should be rigged to favor the smaller party in a dispute.
The key problem is, Microsoft is currently using it's monopoly in one area to try to create monopolies in other areas, such as mail (MSN/Exchange), web standards (IE/ActiveX), web framework (SilverLight/.NET), games (XBox), music (Zune), DRM (WMV), office software and document formats (MSOffice, OOXML),
And they're failing to create a monopoly in most of those areas, failing miserably in some cases.
17,000 downloads may not equal 17,000 lost sales, but even the most fanatical people here would agree there are probably some lost sales there, right? 100 sales? 500? Maybe even 1,000?
Or do people only download music that they don't particularly like and would not pay for under any circumstances?
It seems that no company has been mismanaged or made bad decisions in the past year - any lack of performance is instantly blamed on the "credit freeze"
Fortunately, they screen for this beforehand when casting reality TV shows, and make sure 100% of the participants don't modify their behavior if they're being watched.
Slashdot Mirror
in other words, you want them to become cable television?
If you're going to appoint an attorney in charge of government copyright policy, the thing to do is to get someone with relevant experience. Would you prefer an attorney whose expertise is in Animal Husbandry to get this job?
And if you think it's one of the "bad guys" instead of one of the "good guys" (girls) getting the job... well, working attorneys in copyright (and other "intellectual property" areas) are usually working to protect and monetize the "property" in question. You'd probably have a tough time coming up with a good list of candidates, with good resumes, for the job who share your ideology (or mine) on the issue. Someone like Stephan Kinsella would be both qualified and share our sentiments, but I'm sure he doesn't want the job, nor the job him.
Would it have been too much trouble for the author of the Times piece to actually name a place that is prohibiting Kindles? She managed to get in her Charbucks plug without naming any of the villains.
you let the mouthbreathing facebook hoard elect Sarah Palin as president on American Idol
I think you meant to refer to the horde of people not as intelligent as yourself, not the hoard. But point taken.
NK has been issuing statements like this for years. I take a peek at their news site every so often and there's always something that reads like this.
Not sure why Yahoo! or AFP or anyone else would suddenly consider this news. But I can take a few guesses.
I can't believe large companies would even have to bother with a cold calling strategy. Once you've been in tech a few years (at least this is my experience), hiring of good people mostly happens through word-of-mouth.
I've only gotten cold calls from the most rinky-dink companies.
Companies like Apple, Google, etc. probably already have a good bit of cross-pollination. I just can't see them saying "OK, rev up the phone banks".
The author and many users make it sound like they're acquiring new apps for their phone every few days. I barely acquire apps. In 15 months with my G1 I got a GPS app for when I'm golfing, and two free games for when I'm on an airplane, and that's it.
I mainly use it for phone calls, email, and limited web surfing. I thought most people did.
What is this business model that involves distributing movies for free via p2p and still making a buck? Selling t-shirts? It's slipping my mind right now.
Sirius Satellite Radio rolled out an A La Carte program in 2008 (under pressure from the government), and the number of subscribers that have chosen it is tiny.* Really really tiny. Mel Karmazin grits his teeth every time it's mentioned to him, the high cost it took to implement it and the tiny subscriber adoption.
So it appears many consumers really do like flipping through a zillion channels, for both radio and TV. I'd say it's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming.
*I will say, Sirius does not exactly go out of its way to promote the A La Carte offering. But it does exist.
Adding to the valley's problems is a malfunctioning state government that is shortchanging investment in education and infrastructure. Maybe part of the problem is not that the California government isn't spending enough money, but that it's spending too much.
But if we do not take advantage of the current movement toward paid content
The only evidence of a "movement toward paid content" that I have seen is Rupert Murdoch telling people that there is a movement toward paid content.
as corporations and government make the same decision to free-ride off the investments of others, society suffers the 'tragedy of the commons,' wherein multiple actors operating in their self-interest do harm to the overall public good.
That's not the Tragedy of the Commons. Perhaps the writers at BW should look up the definition of it before using it in an article.
Java in the front, Python in the back
They will subsidize it until its (visible) price is less than air travel.
Don't worry, the newspapers aren't phased by this news - in fact, publishers are meeting in San Diego this week to ponder their fate and one of the items on their agenda is "How to recover some of the classified advertising business that has been usurped by Craig's List and others."
Good luck guys!
There's a simple way to have the best teachers rewarded appropriately - you completely eliminate government schools. The cream will rise to the top in the private-sector schools, as it does now.
But then politicians wouldn't be able to take credit for it.
look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations
Just because Party A is an "ordinary citizen" and Party B is a "big corporation" doesn't mean that Party A should be able to harm Party B with impunity.
NewYorkCountryLawyer, for all the good work he is doing, seems to include verbiage like this in almost every post that makes it to the front page. Over and over... the industry is suing "ordinary folks"... they should stop suing "ordinary folks"... evil big corporation vs. noble, innocent ordinary folks...
I happen to be in the camp that the historical reasons for copyright are no longer extant and that massive reform should be done. But this verbiage disturbs me.
Our legal system should provide facilities for party A to address grievances with party B, whether B is big and A is small, or vice versa. It shouldn't be the goal (as the verbiage seems to suggest) that the legal system should be rigged to favor the smaller party in a dispute.
The key problem is, Microsoft is currently using it's monopoly in one area to try to create monopolies in other areas, such as mail (MSN/Exchange), web standards (IE/ActiveX), web framework (SilverLight/.NET), games (XBox), music (Zune), DRM (WMV), office software and document formats (MSOffice, OOXML),
And they're failing to create a monopoly in most of those areas, failing miserably in some cases.
17,000 downloads may not equal 17,000 lost sales, but even the most fanatical people here would agree there are probably some lost sales there, right? 100 sales? 500? Maybe even 1,000?
Or do people only download music that they don't particularly like and would not pay for under any circumstances?
It seems that no company has been mismanaged or made bad decisions in the past year - any lack of performance is instantly blamed on the "credit freeze"
Problem is, there is no credit freeze.
Only a handful of conservatives, centrists and socialists voted against, while the Communists abstained.
What happened to the good old days when the Communists at least had the courage of their convictions?
this year, Intel began requiring more than half the teleworkers in its IT group to report to the office at least four days a week.
If you're coming to the office four days a week, you're not really a teleworker, are you?
The headline says 101, but the story says 100. Someone please clarify this critical discrepancy.
Fortunately, they screen for this beforehand when casting reality TV shows, and make sure 100% of the participants don't modify their behavior if they're being watched.
Now if Cuba would just lift the ban on Cubans earning money then people will be able to afford the computers that they are now allowed to have.