Payola still exists. There are two ways I know of on how they get away with it. One is that they subtlety say that they are being paid to play it (it's legal if you are honest about it). The other is the use an intermediary to avoid direct liability. Of course, that results in another middleman that adds more overhead.
I wouldn't say that abolishing copyright is irrational, but you are correct in that a moderate stance isn't sustainable. Moderate copyright monopolies aren't sustainable, and those that benefit will push for more and more and more. Boldrin and Levine put it better than I could in Against Intellectual Monopoly
Given that it may well be the case that some modest degree
of intellectual monopoly is superior to complete abolition – why do
we set as a goal complete elimination of intellectual property? Our
position on intellectual monopoly is not different from the position
most economists take on trade restrictions: although some modest
amount of protection might be desirable in special cases, it is more
practical and useful to focus on the elimination of restrictions as a
general rule. Similarly, while some modest amount of intellectual
monopoly might be desirable in very special cases, it is more
practical and useful to focus on the elimination of intellectual
monopoly as a general rule. In innovation as in trade, a modest
degree of monopoly is not sustainable. Once the lobbyist's nose is
inside the tent, the entire lobby is sure to follow, and we will once
again be faced with a broken patent system and absurdly long
copyright terms.
I used to respect copyright somewhat, but as I engaged in more creative activities, learned the realities of the economics of copyright. and became aware of the history and philosophy behind copyright, I began to grow more and more opposed to it. TFA points out how it really is an outdated notion using the economic tools that fit in the era of guilds but not today.
As for 'deserving' compensation, that's a laughable idea. Effort itself doesn't deserve compensation. In order for me to make money, I have to be doing something that something is willing to pay me for. Even copyright doesn't give direct compensation for effort, and the sensible principles of US law demonstrated in Feist v. Rural mean that even for getting the copyright monopoly must provide something besides just effort, namely originality.
Actually, we weren't. There were indeed rich people who owned slaves, but slavery tends to act as an economic crutch, and there are actually solid economics arguments against slavery.
They have to pretend it does promote innovation, but that doesn't mean they actually believe it does. They have to pretend that the CTEA promoted authorship, but I doubt anybody that voted for it actually believed that would be the result.
I was kind of hoping this would be something that would make computer recognition fail while still being pretty subtle to human eyes. I'm not sure of the methods, but there are plenty of factors that we could make use of. For example, CCTV tend to be higher up than human height, and take 2D images. So, perhaps a technique may involve masking shadows from a certain set of angles in a subtle way that avoids detecting a face shape while not being too noticeable by normal people.
Except you've cleverly forgotten that this is not an ordinary instance of supply and demand. Tom Cruise can command high sums of money for making movies because his movies have a legal monopoly given by the government called copyright. Applying free market arguments to non-free markets is utter idiocy.
Communists and socialists should be shot.
Incidentally, my good friend, copyright itself could be reasonably considered to be a socialist program, as the aim of the system is to benefit society, so as a staunch supporter of copyright, you are a supporter of a socialist system, whether you are aware of this or not.. I'm sure you can find a firearm quite cheaply at Wal-mart.
If you want people to respect for copyright, copyright law, copyright holders, and copyright apologists are going to have to have respect for people. Otherwise, the public will just ignore it for being an idiotic, unreasonable law. If you don't like that, TOUGH, bits will never be more difficult to copy than they are today. Copyright exists for the sake of the public welfare and only for that sake, while benefiting authors is merely a means to an end.
Also, it's not being a douchebag to ignore the wishes of the author. In fact, the fair use coverage for parodies is an essential portion of free speech, which is the cornerstone of modern societies, and those protections are needed ESPECIALLY for uses of a work that go against the author's wishes. I understand that rightsholders often attack those foundations of liberty for their own gain (often having success when those exercising free speech don't have the funds to properly defend themselves), but the rightsholders are the ones being douchebags in such a situation.
Of course, we took a leadership role in the media industries when we had some of the weakest copyright laws among industrialized nations. We told the Berne Convention to fuck off for more than a century, and still have more expansive fair use policies than most of the rest of the world
Again, much of the work has been done already. It's not a new way for people to not pay Apple, because jailbreakers and people using other operating systems are already getting software without paying Apple. Now, I do think it's very rude for Apple to try and act like they own MY devices.
The costs are subsidized by a contract, not the phone being locked in If the phone isn't locked to a certain carrier, once that contract is over, the phone is useful on other carriers, so there's competition on your phone bill, which tends to bring it down lower.
Your scheme would probably work, but it deprives Apple of the 30% revenue share from the App Store for most Apps. The revenue share subsidizes the low cost of the dev tools and all the rest of the work Apple puts in to maintain working APIs and documentation
You seem to be assuming that the App Store wouldn't remain the most prominent app store for iPhone. The App Store is still going to get you the biggest audience, and that's probably worth giving Apple a cut in many cases.
Also, it allows people to install malware. This will result in support calls and other costs to support people who installed malware. It also allows software to be installed to circumvent enforcement of contract restrictions on something like tethering.
Then they can refuse support for anyone who installed third party software. As for tethering, the contract restrictions shouldn't have been legal in the first place.
But why should Apple rewrite their software, endure additional support costs, and invent new systems to satisfy your "needs"? Maybe they just don't want to. Maybe they would rather create a system that works good for them and the 99% of everyone else who wants to do something besides complain about App Store restrictions.
It's hard to find good numbers, but I've seen estimates that about 10% of iPhones are jailbroken. That's 10% already willing to void their warranties, not to mention the potential customers they might take from Android by being more open.
And what SOPA tries to do IS censorship. TFA says that individuals accessing a foreign websites will be guilty of a misdemeanor, and that letting someone access foreign websites on your computer may leave you liable. That is straight up censorship, and it's a completely idiotic law. SOPA is idiotic too, though.
I understand the concern with jailbreaking, although I'm not sure all jailbreaks have utilized security exploits, or at least not ones that didn't require physical access to the device. However, there would be no need for jalibreaking if Apple allowed for a simpler mechanism of installing third party repositories. They are under no obligation to do this, but I am under no obligation to not call them jackasses for not doing so. I am not buying an iPhone, but other companies often follow trends Apple starts, so their behavior can get in my way even as a non-customer.
And the development tools, and the APIs, and the hosting and publishing of apps. This is Apple's effort. The cost is $99 plus a percentage of the app price.
If Apple wants to charge for the dev tools, that's their business, but has nothing to do with this. If third party dev tools work, then Apple didn't provide them. There are no hosting and publishing costs if the apps in question are hosted and published by someone else, which is what I'm proposing.
Freedom to write viruses and malware then.
Can you get your head out of your ass for just one minute, please? If it was malware and just malware, I wouldn't be that concerned, but it's far more than just malware that is blocked from the store. There are a number of reasons something can be rejected, and being malware is only one of them.
To prevent malware, Apple publishes and hosts and installs all the apps. This is the method they use. It works. Apple chooses not to publish or host or install porn apps or hate apps. Shouldn't Apple be free to choose not to publish and host porn? Or should they have to do what you prefer instead?
Under my proposed model, Apple wouldn't publish the apps outside of the App Store. Those apps would be published by third parties. Now, Apple doesn't HAVE to do that, but there's no good reason for them NOT to take the five minutes it would take to allow that (jailbreakers have already done the work needed for that) if all they are concerned about is the safety of poor little users. Just let them push the 'I'm a big boy' button, give them a warning, and let them be on their merry way.
To prevent malware, Apple publishes and hosts and installs all the apps. This is the method they use. It works. Apple chooses not to publish or host or install porn apps or hate apps. Shouldn't Apple be free to choose not to publish and host porn? Or should they have to do what you prefer instead?
Civilization is a tradeoff between absolute perfect freedom and the value of some rules and enforcement. There's a thin line where a few rules are better. You aren't free to use your phone when it has been hijacked by malware.
Do you have a policy and a mechanism that will be effective in preventing malware and that no one could ever criticize as "not free enough"?
I JUST explained that. Apple has their own repository. You push a button and read a warning that you are going into the scary world of software not vetted by Apple, and you install third party repositories. People like you don't have to push the button, and can be JUST as safe as they were before. You have either dodged explaining why there is a problem with that, or you don't understand how repos work.
I'm not claiming they are breaking the law. I'm claiming they are being assholes about it, as Apple is prone to do. I understand the warranty thing, and if that's all they did to prevent you from doing that, I wouldn't be concerned, but they take active and repeated steps to block jailbreaking via updates, which are a necessity for security and other problems to be fixed.
I was correcting the erroneous claim made that damages are high because distribution is involved. Legalizing it and having proportionate damages are roughly the same result anyway. Lawsuits against individuals were a waste of time and money with laughably inflated damages, let alone damages that are in line with the scale of the act.
We is society here. The practical measure is user freedom, which is a very precious resource.
And why do you think you're entitled to benefit from Apple's efforts at no cost?
This statement is so backwards it has me dumbfounded. How do you see letting people do what they want with a device as benefiting from Apple's efforts, and how is it at no cost if you still have to pay Apple for the device?
I like the fact that Apple keeps malware off my phone. Their other restrictions are not a problem for me because I don't write, nor do I want to use, hate-apps or porn-apps.
Good for you. I like freedom, and I don't think a corporation should tell me what I can do with something I own.
Please post a perfect policy that no one will ever argue with.
Why do you keep bringing this up? This isn't about what individuals like, but the principles of freedom. As I've said, I'm fine with them offering safe software, so if you want a safe and sterile environment, you can get that. But if someone else wants a porn app, then they should be able to get that easily too. In this proposed scenario, which would take very little work, you can get what you want, and I can get what I want. What is the problem with that?
We'd be better off without what you foolishly call 'civilization.' Now, I would be fine with Apple providing a way to safely and easily offer users high quality, well vetted software, just so long as users can easily install software that Apple doesn't approve of.
Slashdot Mirror
Payola still exists. There are two ways I know of on how they get away with it. One is that they subtlety say that they are being paid to play it (it's legal if you are honest about it). The other is the use an intermediary to avoid direct liability. Of course, that results in another middleman that adds more overhead.
I used to respect copyright somewhat, but as I engaged in more creative activities, learned the realities of the economics of copyright. and became aware of the history and philosophy behind copyright, I began to grow more and more opposed to it. TFA points out how it really is an outdated notion using the economic tools that fit in the era of guilds but not today.
As for 'deserving' compensation, that's a laughable idea. Effort itself doesn't deserve compensation. In order for me to make money, I have to be doing something that something is willing to pay me for. Even copyright doesn't give direct compensation for effort, and the sensible principles of US law demonstrated in Feist v. Rural mean that even for getting the copyright monopoly must provide something besides just effort, namely originality.
Actually, we weren't. There were indeed rich people who owned slaves, but slavery tends to act as an economic crutch, and there are actually solid economics arguments against slavery.
They have to pretend it does promote innovation, but that doesn't mean they actually believe it does. They have to pretend that the CTEA promoted authorship, but I doubt anybody that voted for it actually believed that would be the result.
I looked at the figure itself, and it's incredible quality, particularly for just 100 bucks.
You're crazy, that version won't be out for at least nine months. The won't release it until after the "alternative medicine" playset fails to sell.
I was kind of hoping this would be something that would make computer recognition fail while still being pretty subtle to human eyes. I'm not sure of the methods, but there are plenty of factors that we could make use of. For example, CCTV tend to be higher up than human height, and take 2D images. So, perhaps a technique may involve masking shadows from a certain set of angles in a subtle way that avoids detecting a face shape while not being too noticeable by normal people.
Incidentally, my good friend, copyright itself could be reasonably considered to be a socialist program, as the aim of the system is to benefit society, so as a staunch supporter of copyright, you are a supporter of a socialist system, whether you are aware of this or not.. I'm sure you can find a firearm quite cheaply at Wal-mart.
If you want people to respect for copyright, copyright law, copyright holders, and copyright apologists are going to have to have respect for people. Otherwise, the public will just ignore it for being an idiotic, unreasonable law. If you don't like that, TOUGH, bits will never be more difficult to copy than they are today. Copyright exists for the sake of the public welfare and only for that sake, while benefiting authors is merely a means to an end.
Also, it's not being a douchebag to ignore the wishes of the author. In fact, the fair use coverage for parodies is an essential portion of free speech, which is the cornerstone of modern societies, and those protections are needed ESPECIALLY for uses of a work that go against the author's wishes. I understand that rightsholders often attack those foundations of liberty for their own gain (often having success when those exercising free speech don't have the funds to properly defend themselves), but the rightsholders are the ones being douchebags in such a situation.
Of course, we took a leadership role in the media industries when we had some of the weakest copyright laws among industrialized nations. We told the Berne Convention to fuck off for more than a century, and still have more expansive fair use policies than most of the rest of the world
Again, much of the work has been done already. It's not a new way for people to not pay Apple, because jailbreakers and people using other operating systems are already getting software without paying Apple. Now, I do think it's very rude for Apple to try and act like they own MY devices.
The costs are subsidized by a contract, not the phone being locked in If the phone isn't locked to a certain carrier, once that contract is over, the phone is useful on other carriers, so there's competition on your phone bill, which tends to bring it down lower.
You seem to be assuming that the App Store wouldn't remain the most prominent app store for iPhone. The App Store is still going to get you the biggest audience, and that's probably worth giving Apple a cut in many cases.
Then they can refuse support for anyone who installed third party software. As for tethering, the contract restrictions shouldn't have been legal in the first place.
It's hard to find good numbers, but I've seen estimates that about 10% of iPhones are jailbroken. That's 10% already willing to void their warranties, not to mention the potential customers they might take from Android by being more open.
And the judgement that signing was better than not signing was poor.
Any chance that we can convince them to head over and leave the rest of us alone?
And what SOPA tries to do IS censorship. TFA says that individuals accessing a foreign websites will be guilty of a misdemeanor, and that letting someone access foreign websites on your computer may leave you liable. That is straight up censorship, and it's a completely idiotic law. SOPA is idiotic too, though.
Don't be so loud, our politicians might take that as a challenge and try to retake first place
I understand the concern with jailbreaking, although I'm not sure all jailbreaks have utilized security exploits, or at least not ones that didn't require physical access to the device. However, there would be no need for jalibreaking if Apple allowed for a simpler mechanism of installing third party repositories. They are under no obligation to do this, but I am under no obligation to not call them jackasses for not doing so. I am not buying an iPhone, but other companies often follow trends Apple starts, so their behavior can get in my way even as a non-customer.
If Apple wants to charge for the dev tools, that's their business, but has nothing to do with this. If third party dev tools work, then Apple didn't provide them. There are no hosting and publishing costs if the apps in question are hosted and published by someone else, which is what I'm proposing.
Can you get your head out of your ass for just one minute, please? If it was malware and just malware, I wouldn't be that concerned, but it's far more than just malware that is blocked from the store. There are a number of reasons something can be rejected, and being malware is only one of them.
Under my proposed model, Apple wouldn't publish the apps outside of the App Store. Those apps would be published by third parties. Now, Apple doesn't HAVE to do that, but there's no good reason for them NOT to take the five minutes it would take to allow that (jailbreakers have already done the work needed for that) if all they are concerned about is the safety of poor little users. Just let them push the 'I'm a big boy' button, give them a warning, and let them be on their merry way.
I JUST explained that. Apple has their own repository. You push a button and read a warning that you are going into the scary world of software not vetted by Apple, and you install third party repositories. People like you don't have to push the button, and can be JUST as safe as they were before. You have either dodged explaining why there is a problem with that, or you don't understand how repos work.
I'm not claiming they are breaking the law. I'm claiming they are being assholes about it, as Apple is prone to do. I understand the warranty thing, and if that's all they did to prevent you from doing that, I wouldn't be concerned, but they take active and repeated steps to block jailbreaking via updates, which are a necessity for security and other problems to be fixed.
I was correcting the erroneous claim made that damages are high because distribution is involved. Legalizing it and having proportionate damages are roughly the same result anyway. Lawsuits against individuals were a waste of time and money with laughably inflated damages, let alone damages that are in line with the scale of the act.
This statement is so backwards it has me dumbfounded. How do you see letting people do what they want with a device as benefiting from Apple's efforts, and how is it at no cost if you still have to pay Apple for the device?
Good for you. I like freedom, and I don't think a corporation should tell me what I can do with something I own.
Why do you keep bringing this up? This isn't about what individuals like, but the principles of freedom. As I've said, I'm fine with them offering safe software, so if you want a safe and sterile environment, you can get that. But if someone else wants a porn app, then they should be able to get that easily too. In this proposed scenario, which would take very little work, you can get what you want, and I can get what I want. What is the problem with that?
We'd be better off without what you foolishly call 'civilization.' Now, I would be fine with Apple providing a way to safely and easily offer users high quality, well vetted software, just so long as users can easily install software that Apple doesn't approve of.
Yes, they've banned apps for lots of other reasons. As TFA says, the App Store is Disneyfied.