I just looked at the flickr page, and there is no mention of the word 'copyright' anywhere. All it says is that using the images in a way that implies endorsement by the president is prohibited. The photos don't contain any copyright notices. The only ones claiming they are asserting copyright are the anti-copyright crowd.
Sorry, but you're still wrong. Obviously a juror is not supposed to be just a lump of clay, but they don't need any knowledge of things pertaining to the case. Even in a case as ridiculous as your 'water runs uphill' example. If one side made the statement that water runs uphill, it is up to the other side to challenge him on it (as in ask for proof). If he doesn't challenge, maybe it is because he already knows the answer, and it doesn't help his case (like maybe he knows the water was pumped, and he would prefer that some juror just assumes the guy is lying about water running uphill.) If he does challenge, and the guy can offer no explanation or proof, then you can assume he is lying. However, that assumption would be based off the fact he can't answer the question, not because you have knowledge of physics.
Yes, they get to express their opinion, based on what happened at the trial. That is the purpose of the jury. But there is an enormous difference between saying 'the government didn't prove their case because I believe the guy who was his alibi' and saying 'the guy is guilty because I read on the internet that a whole bunch of damning evidence was excluded because they didn't have a search warrant'. The same is true for so-called 'expert' jurors. You claim to be a computer expert, and I have no way to refute that. However, anyone who claims to be able to state facts about a specific issue without having the opportunity to examine the issue is either deluding themselves or lying. As a juror, you do not get to examine the evidence, you get to hear the opposing side's interpretation of the evidence.
There is a big difference between your two examples. In the first case (juror doesn't like the way a witness spoke), the juror is stating his OPINION of the witness, which is in fact what the jury is there to do. All the other jurors saw/heard the same witness, and they can form their own opinions of the witnesses truthfulness. In the second case, you are stating something as a FACT, but there is no-one there who can confirm or deny your version of the fact. You have now switched from being a juror to being an advocate for one side, and that is not why you are there, so yes the other jurors should tell him to shut up (or ask the judge to have him removed).
The other thing you need to remember is that the trial is the end of the case. There may have been months of work by both sides leading up to the trial. This work includes both sides actually examining the evidence. If one side presents something that a juror considers 'impossible' and the other side does not refute it, there is probably a good reason. The most likely reason for not refuting is that, in this particular case based on actual examination of the evidence, the supposed 'expert' juror is just plain wrong.
How is the rest of the jury supposed to know that what YOU say is correct? No-one has proved that you are an expert in computers, and there is no-one to rebut anything you say. Any juror that listens to the 'knowledge' of any other juror is doing a great disservice to the justice system.
It is interesting that you choose to use the example of My Cousin Vinnie and automechanics to illustrate your point, when it makes exactly the opposite point. You claim that the jury must already have knowledge of mechanics. However, it was the expert witness for the defense (proven to be an expert in court) that had the specific knowledge, and imparted that knowledge to the jury during the trial. The expert witness for the prosecution could not rebut that knowledge, so the jury is free to take it as fact. There was no indication that anyone on the jury (or the movie audience for that matter) had any clue at all about cars, yet everyone of them could reach the appropriate conclusion based solely on what was presented at trial.
Letting the jurors use their own knowledge is problematic, to say the least. First, how did they get that knowledge? Are they actually an expert in that particular area, or did they just read something on the internet? How do the rest of the jurors know that the one with the supposed knowledge is not wrong or just making it up (there is no-one to rebut them, unlike in the courtroom).
To give a real example of where 'outside knowledge' is bad, I was in the jury pool for a criminal case. We were there for several hours, and the jury was just about seated, when the judge came in and said 'sorry everyone, the defendant didn't show up. You are dismissed from further duty'. He then explained that because the defendant didn't show up as scheduled, we had that knowledge and were biased against him already. We did not know the reason he wasn't there - he could have skipped, he could be sick or injured, etc. Whatever the reason, showing up late had nothing to do with the reason he was on trial.
So basically you want to replace the court system with the court of public opinion? We don't need rules of evidence or any of that 'theater', 'I saw it on twitter' should be evidence enough.
I don't know why you think jurors need to be educated, or that being educated (as a juror) is a good thing. A jurors job is basically nothing more than decided which party is telling the truth. To make that determination, they need to be 'educated' in the courtroom as to the facts of the case. Nothing else matters. Saying it is OK to get info outside the courtroom is basically saying that there is no such thing as an illegal search (for instance).
As for what people 'know' today: apparently many people 'know' that there is always DNA evidence, and it always identifies the culprit. They 'know' that there are always tool marks that can positively identify the weapon. There is always trace evidence that puts a person at the scene, etc. Of course, all this is wrong, but that doesn't stop people from expecting to see such evidence, making prosecution that much harder.
Does the skill of the lawyers matter? Absolutely. Is that an ideal system? Nope. Has anyone presented a better alternative? Nope.
I don't know. Do you have the latest stats on how many lives were saved because these drugs were developed in the first place? In most cases, they were developed because the companies can make money on them. Take away patents, they lose that incentive. Is that better?
Actually, there is a huge difference. First of all, in no case (in spite of the hyperbole in the summary) has anyone been sued by anyone for USING a product. They are being sued for making/distributing COPIES of the product. If the library printed you a new copy of the book for you to keep then they would be similar.
I am not sure where you get the idea that newspapers think they are owed an existence. What I see is a company saying 'here is my product, here is my price'. If people want the product at the price, they will buy it. If enough people buy it, they stay in business and make a profit. If too many people are satisfied with whatever they can get for free then there is no reason for the Times to exist anyway. They are not 'making people pay', they are offering a product at a price. I see an awful lot of people buying bottled water, are the water companies also not working within market realities? I see people paying for internet access when access is free at the library - are the ISPs not working within market realities? Or maybe, people will pay for something that is otherwise free if they feel it offers them something.
The New York Times is not seeing a massive drop in readership, it is seeing a massive drop in revenue. Huge difference. Revenue is not dropping because people aren't reading the news, it is dropping because people are reading on-line, and advertisers think on-line advertising is worthless.
Do you know what the AP is? It is an organization OWNED BY THE PAPERS for the purpose of producing things for them. It is not some magical entity that spits out news articles for anyone to pick up for free. The millions a year the NYT spends to produce a product includes the money it spends in the AP. All these people who think 'we don't need papers, we have the AP' are in for a rude awakening. When the papers die, AP goes with them.
You can go way farther than journalist and newspaper. Replace musician and record label with employee and employer. Does a musician need a label? No, they could do it all themselves. Does a chef need to work at someone's restaurant? No, he could open his own. Does a doctor need to join a group? No, he can open his own practice. An electrician could run his own business instead of working for a firm. In each case, many (most) people go the route that provides them the most financial security, working for someone else. And in many of those cases, they are complaining that they are treated unfairly, should make more money, etc.
No, it is making the same arguments that people CLAIM the musicians and recording industry use. Where did any musician or recording industry exec claim that merely listening to music is a copyright violation? Where did they claim that creating your own original work is a copyright violation?
There's more to it than that. Nintendo doesn't have a 'Wii balance board' division, who's sole job is to make a profit on Wii balance board hardware. Instead, they get to look at the big picture. They don't necessarily need to make ANY profit on the balance board hardware. They can make their profit from game sales and licensing. Having the balance board may drive additional console sales. More console sales may mean more non-balance board game sales. They can make even more profit selling other related stuff like mats and water bottles. The medical device however is pretty much a stand-alone item. All development expenses, manufacturing costs, and profit must be made on the sale of that single item.
Why should exclusive contracts be illegal? Exactly who are they hurting? In this case, NetFlix benefits by gaining customers (and whatever cash/technology they got from Microsoft), Microsoft benefits by having a differentiator for their platform, XBOX 360 users benefit by being able to use the service, and no-one else is affected in the slightest. Sure, PS3 and Wii customers were not able to use NetFlix, but so what? Exclusive contracts are one of the more basic elements of life. Own property? You have an exclusive contract for that (the deed). Rent an apartment? You have an exclusive contract (the lease). And lets not forget the granddaddy of exclusive contracts, marriage.
This doesn't sound like either responsible or irresponsible disclosure. It sounds like plain old extortion. Notice he does not say he provided the vendor with the vulnerability info, just that he contacted the vendor. Calling a vendor and saying 'you have a vulnerability, pay me x and I will tell you what it is, don't pay and I'll tell everyone else' is not 'being responsible', it is extortion. Given that he must now resort to a blanket 'from now on I'll just release it' threat he must be getting pretty desperate. Frankly, I have no trouble believing that IBM/Tivoli and Sun/Mysql would not bat an eye at an extortion attempt, but I find it hard to believe they would not fix an actual vulnerability if it was reported as such.
Why do people focus so much on cost to produce/distribute? What difference can that possibly make to you? The only thing that really matters is the value of the thing to YOU. You look at the price of $5 for the download and say 'rip-off, because it cost them less than that'. Many people, including myself, look at it as 'for $5, I get an evenings entertainment, and I don't need to go out in the cold, spend 1/2 hour getting to/from the rental store, hope they have what I want, and repeat the whole thing tomorrow to take it back'. That is $5 well spent. They could give the movies away for free at the rental store and the $5 download would still be a good deal.
Content companies set price points that maximize their profits. It (profit) is the entire reason they are in business in the first place. They maximize profits by having people value their product at a higher point than it costs to make. The bigger the difference, the better for the company. And no, the consumer is not being ripped off, because they are the ones who assign the value in the first place (if the company prices too high, people don't buy).
Exactly what 'unconstitutional' things do you think INTERPOL can/will do? They provide information. They don't investigate, issue warrants, or arrest. They have no 'agents'. They are as threatening as the other organizations with this status, such as the International Red Cross.
Except, of course, that there is no such thing as an "Interpol officer", and even if there were such a thing, shooting an unarmed suspect would not be one of his official duties, so he would not be immune.
Just because you can open a laptop battery and find bog-standard cells does not mean that that is what the manufacturer bought. Most likely, the laptop manufacturer did not just go to Batteries-R-Us and by whatever was available. Instead, they give the battery manufacturer requirements (tolerance levels, testing levels, maximum failure levels, etc). They also do things like have contracts that say x amount of batteries can be delivered in y amount of time. All of that drives the price up. Also, every time a part is touched the price goes up (shipping, storage, inventory costs, etc are not free). Yes, you can go to a web site and buy something that looks similar, but you are probably buying leftovers, or batteries that failed someones requirements.
Manufacturing and supply-chain management is a lot more complicated (and expensive) than most people realize.
You have too narrow a definition of 'works out for consumers' and/or 'genuine competition'. It could be argued that a lightweight laptop computer with reasonable battery life has in fact 'worked out for consumers'. What got us to the point where we even have such a thing to discuss? Competition. What caused the competition? Capitalism. There is way more to competition than price. If the only competition we had was race-to-the-bottom prices there would be no reason to innovate anything at all (it would cost more to develop a product than you could make in profits, because someone else can always do it cheaper).
Why does cost to manufacture matter to a consumer? Either the thing is worth (to you) the price being charged, or it isn't. If the price exceeds the value (your determination), don't buy it. Even if the cost did matter, how could you possibly calculate it?
The problem is that you are looking at individual things (laptops, batteries, etc) in a vacuum, and that is not how a business looks at it. For instance, let's say a laptop (without battery) actually costs $500 to make, with a reasonable profit, and a battery actually costs $100. A business may do a study, and find out that the average laptop will use 2 batteries in it's lifetime. So, on average, a consumer will spend $700 over the life of the product for laptop and batteries. Now they have a decision to make: would a consumer be more likely to pay $600 for laptop/battery, and $100 to replace the battery, or would they pay $500 for laptop/battery and $200 to replace the battery? Either way, you are paying the same price over the life of the product. Now with something like a lawnmower, the battery is probably a smaller piece of the overall cost, and you are probably going to replace the battery many more times over the life of the product, so each battery is priced closer to the 'real' price.
Slashdot Mirror
I just looked at the flickr page, and there is no mention of the word 'copyright' anywhere. All it says is that using the images in a way that implies endorsement by the president is prohibited. The photos don't contain any copyright notices. The only ones claiming they are asserting copyright are the anti-copyright crowd.
Sorry, but you're still wrong. Obviously a juror is not supposed to be just a lump of clay, but they don't need any knowledge of things pertaining to the case. Even in a case as ridiculous as your 'water runs uphill' example. If one side made the statement that water runs uphill, it is up to the other side to challenge him on it (as in ask for proof). If he doesn't challenge, maybe it is because he already knows the answer, and it doesn't help his case (like maybe he knows the water was pumped, and he would prefer that some juror just assumes the guy is lying about water running uphill.) If he does challenge, and the guy can offer no explanation or proof, then you can assume he is lying. However, that assumption would be based off the fact he can't answer the question, not because you have knowledge of physics.
Yes, they get to express their opinion, based on what happened at the trial. That is the purpose of the jury. But there is an enormous difference between saying 'the government didn't prove their case because I believe the guy who was his alibi' and saying 'the guy is guilty because I read on the internet that a whole bunch of damning evidence was excluded because they didn't have a search warrant'. The same is true for so-called 'expert' jurors. You claim to be a computer expert, and I have no way to refute that. However, anyone who claims to be able to state facts about a specific issue without having the opportunity to examine the issue is either deluding themselves or lying. As a juror, you do not get to examine the evidence, you get to hear the opposing side's interpretation of the evidence.
There is a big difference between your two examples. In the first case (juror doesn't like the way a witness spoke), the juror is stating his OPINION of the witness, which is in fact what the jury is there to do. All the other jurors saw/heard the same witness, and they can form their own opinions of the witnesses truthfulness. In the second case, you are stating something as a FACT, but there is no-one there who can confirm or deny your version of the fact. You have now switched from being a juror to being an advocate for one side, and that is not why you are there, so yes the other jurors should tell him to shut up (or ask the judge to have him removed).
The other thing you need to remember is that the trial is the end of the case. There may have been months of work by both sides leading up to the trial. This work includes both sides actually examining the evidence. If one side presents something that a juror considers 'impossible' and the other side does not refute it, there is probably a good reason. The most likely reason for not refuting is that, in this particular case based on actual examination of the evidence, the supposed 'expert' juror is just plain wrong.
How is the rest of the jury supposed to know that what YOU say is correct? No-one has proved that you are an expert in computers, and there is no-one to rebut anything you say. Any juror that listens to the 'knowledge' of any other juror is doing a great disservice to the justice system.
It is interesting that you choose to use the example of My Cousin Vinnie and automechanics to illustrate your point, when it makes exactly the opposite point. You claim that the jury must already have knowledge of mechanics. However, it was the expert witness for the defense (proven to be an expert in court) that had the specific knowledge, and imparted that knowledge to the jury during the trial. The expert witness for the prosecution could not rebut that knowledge, so the jury is free to take it as fact. There was no indication that anyone on the jury (or the movie audience for that matter) had any clue at all about cars, yet everyone of them could reach the appropriate conclusion based solely on what was presented at trial.
Letting the jurors use their own knowledge is problematic, to say the least. First, how did they get that knowledge? Are they actually an expert in that particular area, or did they just read something on the internet? How do the rest of the jurors know that the one with the supposed knowledge is not wrong or just making it up (there is no-one to rebut them, unlike in the courtroom).
To give a real example of where 'outside knowledge' is bad, I was in the jury pool for a criminal case. We were there for several hours, and the jury was just about seated, when the judge came in and said 'sorry everyone, the defendant didn't show up. You are dismissed from further duty'. He then explained that because the defendant didn't show up as scheduled, we had that knowledge and were biased against him already. We did not know the reason he wasn't there - he could have skipped, he could be sick or injured, etc. Whatever the reason, showing up late had nothing to do with the reason he was on trial.
So basically you want to replace the court system with the court of public opinion? We don't need rules of evidence or any of that 'theater', 'I saw it on twitter' should be evidence enough.
I don't know why you think jurors need to be educated, or that being educated (as a juror) is a good thing. A jurors job is basically nothing more than decided which party is telling the truth. To make that determination, they need to be 'educated' in the courtroom as to the facts of the case. Nothing else matters. Saying it is OK to get info outside the courtroom is basically saying that there is no such thing as an illegal search (for instance).
As for what people 'know' today: apparently many people 'know' that there is always DNA evidence, and it always identifies the culprit. They 'know' that there are always tool marks that can positively identify the weapon. There is always trace evidence that puts a person at the scene, etc. Of course, all this is wrong, but that doesn't stop people from expecting to see such evidence, making prosecution that much harder.
Does the skill of the lawyers matter? Absolutely. Is that an ideal system? Nope. Has anyone presented a better alternative? Nope.
I don't know. Do you have the latest stats on how many lives were saved because these drugs were developed in the first place? In most cases, they were developed because the companies can make money on them. Take away patents, they lose that incentive. Is that better?
Actually, there is a huge difference. First of all, in no case (in spite of the hyperbole in the summary) has anyone been sued by anyone for USING a product. They are being sued for making/distributing COPIES of the product. If the library printed you a new copy of the book for you to keep then they would be similar.
I am not sure where you get the idea that newspapers think they are owed an existence. What I see is a company saying 'here is my product, here is my price'. If people want the product at the price, they will buy it. If enough people buy it, they stay in business and make a profit. If too many people are satisfied with whatever they can get for free then there is no reason for the Times to exist anyway. They are not 'making people pay', they are offering a product at a price. I see an awful lot of people buying bottled water, are the water companies also not working within market realities? I see people paying for internet access when access is free at the library - are the ISPs not working within market realities? Or maybe, people will pay for something that is otherwise free if they feel it offers them something.
The New York Times is not seeing a massive drop in readership, it is seeing a massive drop in revenue. Huge difference. Revenue is not dropping because people aren't reading the news, it is dropping because people are reading on-line, and advertisers think on-line advertising is worthless.
Do you know what the AP is? It is an organization OWNED BY THE PAPERS for the purpose of producing things for them. It is not some magical entity that spits out news articles for anyone to pick up for free. The millions a year the NYT spends to produce a product includes the money it spends in the AP. All these people who think 'we don't need papers, we have the AP' are in for a rude awakening. When the papers die, AP goes with them.
You can go way farther than journalist and newspaper. Replace musician and record label with employee and employer. Does a musician need a label? No, they could do it all themselves. Does a chef need to work at someone's restaurant? No, he could open his own. Does a doctor need to join a group? No, he can open his own practice. An electrician could run his own business instead of working for a firm. In each case, many (most) people go the route that provides them the most financial security, working for someone else. And in many of those cases, they are complaining that they are treated unfairly, should make more money, etc.
No, it is making the same arguments that people CLAIM the musicians and recording industry use. Where did any musician or recording industry exec claim that merely listening to music is a copyright violation? Where did they claim that creating your own original work is a copyright violation?
There's more to it than that. Nintendo doesn't have a 'Wii balance board' division, who's sole job is to make a profit on Wii balance board hardware. Instead, they get to look at the big picture. They don't necessarily need to make ANY profit on the balance board hardware. They can make their profit from game sales and licensing. Having the balance board may drive additional console sales. More console sales may mean more non-balance board game sales. They can make even more profit selling other related stuff like mats and water bottles. The medical device however is pretty much a stand-alone item. All development expenses, manufacturing costs, and profit must be made on the sale of that single item.
Why should exclusive contracts be illegal? Exactly who are they hurting? In this case, NetFlix benefits by gaining customers (and whatever cash/technology they got from Microsoft), Microsoft benefits by having a differentiator for their platform, XBOX 360 users benefit by being able to use the service, and no-one else is affected in the slightest. Sure, PS3 and Wii customers were not able to use NetFlix, but so what? Exclusive contracts are one of the more basic elements of life. Own property? You have an exclusive contract for that (the deed). Rent an apartment? You have an exclusive contract (the lease). And lets not forget the granddaddy of exclusive contracts, marriage.
This doesn't sound like either responsible or irresponsible disclosure. It sounds like plain old extortion. Notice he does not say he provided the vendor with the vulnerability info, just that he contacted the vendor. Calling a vendor and saying 'you have a vulnerability, pay me x and I will tell you what it is, don't pay and I'll tell everyone else' is not 'being responsible', it is extortion. Given that he must now resort to a blanket 'from now on I'll just release it' threat he must be getting pretty desperate. Frankly, I have no trouble believing that IBM/Tivoli and Sun/Mysql would not bat an eye at an extortion attempt, but I find it hard to believe they would not fix an actual vulnerability if it was reported as such.
Why do people focus so much on cost to produce/distribute? What difference can that possibly make to you? The only thing that really matters is the value of the thing to YOU. You look at the price of $5 for the download and say 'rip-off, because it cost them less than that'. Many people, including myself, look at it as 'for $5, I get an evenings entertainment, and I don't need to go out in the cold, spend 1/2 hour getting to/from the rental store, hope they have what I want, and repeat the whole thing tomorrow to take it back'. That is $5 well spent. They could give the movies away for free at the rental store and the $5 download would still be a good deal.
Content companies set price points that maximize their profits. It (profit) is the entire reason they are in business in the first place. They maximize profits by having people value their product at a higher point than it costs to make. The bigger the difference, the better for the company. And no, the consumer is not being ripped off, because they are the ones who assign the value in the first place (if the company prices too high, people don't buy).
Exactly what 'unconstitutional' things do you think INTERPOL can/will do? They provide information. They don't investigate, issue warrants, or arrest. They have no 'agents'. They are as threatening as the other organizations with this status, such as the International Red Cross.
How is Interpol (or another international organization) going to harm an ordinary citizen in the course of their official duties?
Except, of course, that there is no such thing as an "Interpol officer", and even if there were such a thing, shooting an unarmed suspect would not be one of his official duties, so he would not be immune.
Just because you can open a laptop battery and find bog-standard cells does not mean that that is what the manufacturer bought. Most likely, the laptop manufacturer did not just go to Batteries-R-Us and by whatever was available. Instead, they give the battery manufacturer requirements (tolerance levels, testing levels, maximum failure levels, etc). They also do things like have contracts that say x amount of batteries can be delivered in y amount of time. All of that drives the price up. Also, every time a part is touched the price goes up (shipping, storage, inventory costs, etc are not free). Yes, you can go to a web site and buy something that looks similar, but you are probably buying leftovers, or batteries that failed someones requirements.
Manufacturing and supply-chain management is a lot more complicated (and expensive) than most people realize.
You have too narrow a definition of 'works out for consumers' and/or 'genuine competition'. It could be argued that a lightweight laptop computer with reasonable battery life has in fact 'worked out for consumers'. What got us to the point where we even have such a thing to discuss? Competition. What caused the competition? Capitalism. There is way more to competition than price. If the only competition we had was race-to-the-bottom prices there would be no reason to innovate anything at all (it would cost more to develop a product than you could make in profits, because someone else can always do it cheaper).
Why does cost to manufacture matter to a consumer? Either the thing is worth (to you) the price being charged, or it isn't. If the price exceeds the value (your determination), don't buy it. Even if the cost did matter, how could you possibly calculate it?
The problem is that you are looking at individual things (laptops, batteries, etc) in a vacuum, and that is not how a business looks at it. For instance, let's say a laptop (without battery) actually costs $500 to make, with a reasonable profit, and a battery actually costs $100. A business may do a study, and find out that the average laptop will use 2 batteries in it's lifetime. So, on average, a consumer will spend $700 over the life of the product for laptop and batteries. Now they have a decision to make: would a consumer be more likely to pay $600 for laptop/battery, and $100 to replace the battery, or would they pay $500 for laptop/battery and $200 to replace the battery? Either way, you are paying the same price over the life of the product. Now with something like a lawnmower, the battery is probably a smaller piece of the overall cost, and you are probably going to replace the battery many more times over the life of the product, so each battery is priced closer to the 'real' price.