"But telemarketers say 27 existing state do-not-call lists and a voluntary national list run by the Direct Marketing Association trade group should provide consumers enough protection."
That part really amused me--so they're saying the states have the right to do this, but the feds don't. That's a pretty bad way to win an argument.
Of course the rest of the world was doing stuff too, but nowhere else was as much going on under one roof that ended up coming to revolutionary or at least important fruition. You gotta at least understand some of the fascination. Certainly for many of us who were too young or didn't witness the time first hand, there is a danger of a holy grail attitude--but on the whole it seems to me that a history of computing that focuses too much on PARC isn't the end of the world--and on the whole, if it gets people to read about it where the wouldn't otherwise, that's a Good Thing.
Personally I've always been most fascinated by Bob Taylor's abilities to assemble brilliant, and more importanly productive people. Perhaps more important than the actual products from PARC (though obviously closely related) was the people and what they did there as well as in their own or other companies.
And if nothing else, hopefully the continued attention to PARC will teach management, not only the importance of putting together quality teams, but also giving them the freedom to create. Pure research seems to be at an alltime low--academia seems to be getting so much funding from corporate interests, inevitably with strings attached. Companies seem to be letting marketing & market research dictate the direction of R&D. Hopefully PARC reminds people that sometimes you need to put smart people together & let them do what they want in order to get really revolutionary ideas.
But in the end, I'd rather see a legacy for all. No man stands tall except on the shoulders of others.
Kudos on applying that quote to this disucssion--Good god I don't know what greater endorsement there is for the public domain than the fact that Newton, whose postive impact on the world has to be greater than any other in history, gave credit to his predecessors by saying, "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Just think where we would be today, if he would have been able to wrap up his "intellectual property" the way corporations do now.
No that doesn't work either because a house is a real, tangible thing, so it can actually belong to and be owned by some one. An idea on the other hand is not. The moment you share an idea, it is replicated into the mind of those who see/hear/read it. In order to promote the creation and exchange of ideas, if you copyright an idea, you are given a "limited-term" (hah) monopoly on the right to copy the idea. Copyright is a contract, you get the protection for a period and in tern, it becomes public domain at the end of the period. If you don't agree to the terms, they you're free to not copyright your idea and welcome to come up with some other way to make money off of it. The mortage analogy is accurate not in terms of the house, but that wasn't the point. The point was that copyright is a contract, just like a mortgage, and the terms of the contract shouldn't be allowed to be changed unless both parties agree to the change.
Do you really think that is true? Not about the cartoons themselves, but that that's a big motivating factor for Disney? Assuming for the moment that the copyright on that stuff did run out and it entered into the public domain. Is there actually some sort of mechanism that would force Disney (or anyone) to actually release it? I'm sure Disney has probably bought up as much of this stuff as it can, and probably most of it has been lost or thrown away. How would people see it then to be outraged?
And beyond just Disney, this question looms large on the issue as a whole. When a copyright runs out, the holder doesn't have any requirement to actually make the piece available to the public. I guess maybe this is the role of the library of congress? But they don't actually have every book, movie, etc. I mean how would they, books possibly, but what format would they have gotten the original moves in that they'd still be valid and useful today? Yet another major problem with copyright terms that outlast the media their printed on.
I have to disagree with you (and agree with Eldred). While I agree that unfortunately the Supreme Court did what they're supposed to, that they didn't have enough grounds to rule it unconstitutional (though I think the retroactive aspect certainly could have gone either way if it were separated). But there are two reasons that it was worth it even if was in vain. First and foremost, it was worth a try. Longshot though it was, you don't win the lottery unless you buy a ticket. And second and more importantly, I really do believe it stimulated discussion. Now granted the vast majority of people still have no comprehension of what copyright is and more importantly, why it exists. But a lot of people got interested in the issue and began reading more and more about it and are much more informed than they were before the lawsuit. How do I know? I'm one of them. And a few of my friends are too.
And if nothing else, it got some of the Justices of the Supreme Court to come out and openly criticize Congress and put it in writing that they believed they didn't have the best interests of the public in mind. That alone was worth the price of admission!
As far as the system winning, it's mixed. I haven't had the time yet to read the decisions, but I thoroughly read the transcripts from the trial. From that I was impressed that the justices seemed to be asking the tough questions of both sides and seemed to have a good understanding of not just the legal (obviously) but also the social, political and economic impacts (whether those are for their consideration could be arguable). The impression I got from the trial was that the copyright extension act was awful, terrible law that was not in the best interests of society, but that it could not be ruled unconstitutional. They played by the rules even though it seemed like they disagreed with the law.
But the system has failed miserably in that congress passed a law that was not in the best interests of society as a whole--becuase they were bought. Until campaign finance reform makes the bribery and quid pro quo illegal, our system is broken.
You need to actually read about the difference between real property and intellectual property. Let me give you the abbreviated course--Ideas are free. There is no intrinsic value to an idea. Say you create something--a work of art, a story whatever. Once I look at it or read it, I now have a copy of it in my head. That doesn't take it away from you, you still have it. And I can't "unknow" it. If I recreate it, I haven't harmed you in any real way. The world would be just fine without copyright, it's really no great injustice to steal/borrow/copy/whatever ideas because thoughts and ideas have no intrinsic value. But there isn't much incentive then to create ideas. So in order to "promote the creation of useful arts and sciences" the Constitution grants a limited monopoly on copying certain ideas. Now real property on the other hand, does have a real, intrinsic value. Stealing my car is wrong because you're depriving me of it. If somehow you could look at it, and create a copy of it for yourself, that's perfectly ok.
There's nothing wrong with Disney fighting for their right to keep Mickey. I understand they have every right to try and do whatever is in their best interests and to hell with the rest of us. But our lawmakers are supposed to act in the best interests of all of us, not just one company. When Disney created (stole) Mickey in the first place, they knew that they would only have exclusive rights to his likeness for a limited term--they were fully aware of this because they have taken countless works from the public domain for their own use.
However, for the most part, Disney and their copyrights really aren't the issue. We don't care at all about Mickey. Disney could keep Mickey forever for all we care. The problem is that there are approximately 10,000 books that would have gone into public domain this year alone had the copyright not been extended. Of these, roughly 175 are still in print. So about 9,825 books will basically be gone forever because the copyright owner won't print them any more and yet they won't be released into the public domain. That's what we're most concerned about. The vast majority of the books that were printed three quarters of a century ago are either gone completely or soon will be because in most cases the copyright holder is either gone, doesn't care or won't re-print a book because of the expense. For the overwhelming majority of works that are protected, all profit has long since been milked dry and moving said creations into public domain has no harm to anyone. Even though it's completely against the constitution and common decency, most of us would be willing to let the Disney's keep their Mickey's and whatever else they wanted in exchange for getting the everything else into public domain.
There's nothing wrong with Disney fighting for their right to keep Mickey. I understand they have every right to try and do whatever is in their best interests and to hell with the rest of us. But our lawmakers are supposed to act in the best interests of all of us, not just one company. When Disney created (stole) Mickey in the first place, they knew that they would only have exclusive rights to his likeness for a limited term--they were fully aware of this because they have taken countless works from the public domain for their own use.
However, for the most part, Disney and their copyrights really aren't the issue. We don't care at all about Mickey. Disney could keep Mickey forever for all we care. The problem is that there are approximately 10,000 books that would have gone into public domain this year alone had the copyright not been extended. Of these, roughly 175 are still in print. So about 9,825 books will basically be gone forever because the copyright owner won't print them any more and yet they won't be released into the public domain. That's what we're most concerned about. The vast majority of the books that were printed three quarters of a century ago are either gone completely or soon will be because in most cases the copyright holder is either gone, doesn't care or won't re-print a book because of the expense. For the overwhelming majority of works that are protected, all profit has long since been milked dry and moving said creations into public domain has no harm to anyone. Even though it's completely against the constitution and common decency, most of us would be willing to let the Disney's keep their Mickey's and whatever else they wanted in exchange for getting the everything else into public domain.
Yes. Yes. Yes. The underlying problem at the heart of so many issues, is campaign finance. Copyright acts are extended indefinitely, clearly to the detriment to society as a whole. No suprise, because there are tons of laws passed that are beneficial to a specific company or industry and harmful to everyone else. Until buying votes is illegal, (most of) our lawmakers will always side with the special interests stuffing their pockets. One of the arguments is that campaign contributions are speech (load of crap) and corporations have a right to free speech. As far as I'm concerned, people are people, corporations are not people. I've yet to hear a good argument as to what good is served by giving a imaginary legal entity citizenship.
So people are saying that if you don't specifically exclude yourself from the settlement, then you're assumed to have agreed with it and can have no further claims against them on this matter. I can understand that you forfeit further claims if you settle & accept the money, but how can they possibly hold you to something you don't agree to in the event you don't exclused yourself or don't hear about the settlement for that matter? If that's the case, then it benefits the company to keep the settlement as quiet as possible because anyone who doesn't hear about it not only misses out on the settlement benefit, but is considered in agreement with the terms. I have to suspect that's not the case.
Second, it seems entirely unreasonable to make the amount each victim gets based on how many victims there are. If they broke the law and I am an injured party with a valid claim on the settlement, how does it matter in the least whether one or a billion others were also injured? Essentially this means that a company can break the law and illegally over charge millions of customers and it costs them the same as if they did it to a handful. I love the tone that sends--I might as well screw over as many people as possible, if I'm caught, I pay the same price either way.
Finally this statement got my attention:
"The cash paid by the Defendants, after the payment of attorneys' fees, litigation and Settlement administration costs, shall be distributed to consumers who purchased Music Products."
In other words, the $67 million is actually $67 million minus their attorney's fees, administrative fees and whatever they can tack on. Tell me this, how the harry hell can you take your attorney fees out of the settlement you're supposed to pay to your victims? So in the end, it might be more like $40 million or something for overcharging consumers by $480 million AND no admission of guilt or consent decree so they can continue the practice as if nothing happened. Wow, now there's a business model the VC's should be drooling over!
Yes they absolutely do have a business model like the console gaming industry--they sell printers fairly cheap, often at or below cost when rebates are included, and make the money back by selling toner cartridges. This business model is failing because of competition (which is a Good Thing) so they're using the DMCA to kill competition. Of course they chose the business model so why they think anyone will take their side or feel sorry for them is beyond me.
Not that they necessarily would or should have made the list anyway, but from what I understand, they exclude companies that are undergoing mergers. We'll see whether HPaq returns next year.
IANAL (but I watch a lot of law & order;) As long as a judge has decided there is probable cause to issue a warrant, then what's the big deal. I'm as big of a supporter of privacy and constitutional rights as anyone, and legitimate, valid search warrants are consistent with those rights. Whether it's through log files of a website or physical evidence in the real world it shouldn't matter-if everything is kosher then the cops should be able to get evidence to catch the bad guys. In this case, the first part of the request looks fine, they have requested logs from one week--while I wish more info was given, hopefully the judge who granted the warrant was presented more detailed information and thus granted the warrant. And there is a remedy for situations where judges grant a warrant without enough probable cause--it should be appealed and the appeals court can throw out the search and conviction. I do have a problem with the second request--requesting any logs should not nearly specific enough to be valid
I haven't read very much about the Florida suit yet but my understanding is that it allows for the state to check and make sure the child doesn't have any major debiltating genetic conditions and isn't in some way in pain. There's a ton of ignorance about the whole cloning thing and I would bet that at least half the population thinks that a human clone would be a mindless, souless drone. While this is completely crazy, the fact of the matter is that so far, cloned animals have had genetic anomolies and been sentenced to a shortened lifespan. Given that humans are considerably more complex genetically than the other animals cloned, it's entirely likely that if in fact these cooks did clone a human, the child may be sick or in pain in some way--in which case, all involved should be held liable - potentially even criminally neglegent homicide if the baby doesn't survive due to a failure on their part. If in fact they have created a clone, then it seems not only reasonable but right that some one is looking out for the well-being of the child. UFO cults shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt about where their ultimate concern lies.
As far as I'm concerned, laws banning cloning are unnecessary and misguided. Science is moving ahead in the rest of the world, to try and ignore it is short-sighted. Rather than banning cloning and research, scientists should be free to create a human clone, with full understanding that if they screw anything up and the child is in any way in pain or "less than human" the punishment should be severe.
While the money wasn't critical, the agreement to keep releasing Office for the Mac was. Had Microsoft killed Office for the Mac then or now, Apple certainly wouldn't be around or some one would have bought them out. Now in all likeliness this would have caused major antitrust issues--lets face it, MS wasn't acting out of the goodness of their heart, and it would be a very easy case to prove because MS makes buckets of money from Mac Office (probably more profitable than Windows) but as evident from the last antitrust case, trials take time. If Microsoft wanted Apple gone, they would be gone.
The idea that a purchase of Macromedia would be to put Apple out of business is absolutely laughable. Such an acquisition could be about any or all of:
getting the Flash codebase
getting the Flash developers
getting Freehand
getting or squashing Coldfusion as a competitor to ASP
killing Java with Flash/Coldfusion or
getting Dreamweaver to control & guide web development.
And for good measure, here is a cached NY Times article listing major MS products their main competition and how they got the product. It's a little dated (from Oct. 1998) for example, it lists Visio as a PowerPoint competitor.
I'd love to spend some time doing a more thorough review of all their past acquisitions and what happened to the technology they bought but I suspect I won't have the time so if this is a starting point for some one else to do so, great. Anecdotally I'm afraid a fair number of their acquisitions were to eliminate the competition and kill the technology rather than actually acquire the technology to improve their products and I would love to see a factual assessment of their acquisitions.
I hope they buy out Adobe too so they can kill Photoshop because that's what most of the non flash banner ads use to make animated gifs. Oh and I hope they manage to completely kill off C++ too--because I was playing a game the other day and it was done in C++ and I didn't really like it, so it must be the language.
Seriously why is it that so many Slashdotters are reasonable when it comes to the right tool for the job attitude on most things, but because a lot of ads and annoying skip intros are done in Flash, they villify the tool. Fact of the matter is Flash is the right tool for some jobs, and despite all the abuse by "me-to" splash screen creators, there are a lot of things Flash does really well. And do you honestly think that if Flash vanished off the face of the planet tomorrow, there'd suddenly be less ads or ads would be less obnoxious?
I was hoping for some interesting commentary and speculation on the Microsoft buying Macromedia rumors and instead found an anti-Flash flame war. Sorry for the soapbox, but it's just disappointing.
Why do you have a big ethical problem? Most babies are aborted for a reason, and its none of anyone else's damn business if a woman decides to abort her baby
What about the father? I'd say it's very much his damn business. Ignoring the main point of contention, (at what point the cells are a baby or human) if your argument is that this mass of cells belongs to the mother to do what she pleases, tell me why half of it does not belong to the father? If you want to play this as a property rights game then at least part of the fetus belongs to the father.
FWIW, being a brand new father, I don't in the least agree with this "it" business and am merely trying to objectifiy what I consider a human for the sake of dicussion and because I understand that this is my opinion and others disagree. I would love to hear some one tell me that my daughter was any less human than them when she would get the hiccups while she was still in the womb.
That's exactly what I've been arguing for some time. For the most part, unsolicited spam is illegal, but it's not enforcable because the spammers change ISPs and/or are offshore, so they can't be found or punished. But there is almost always a contact of some sort in the email in order for the "customer" to give the company money. Businesses are knowingly paying some one to do something illegal, so they should be held culpable too. It's no different that holding a company that knowingly sells stolen goods liable. Just because they aren't the ones breaking the law doesn't mean they can profit from the crime.
1. The duh answer of them all of course is increased school funding.
Because throwing more money at a problem always fixes is right? Don't get me wrong, I believe in spending on eduction big time because it's one of the few public services where there's actually any sort of return on investment to society. But admit that spending more money on education will only (partially) cover up the underlying problems at best. At least in my state (WI) there are two major goals of the public education system:
have as many students as possible show up on the day they do headcounts to determine state funding
send as many students to college as possible.
If the problems with this aren't obvious enough, let me be explain. Students who aren't college bound are not educated on how to function in the world. Big problem there. Students who are prepped for college-entry aren't actually prepared for college. And they aren't educated on how to function in the world either.
So I can't be criticized for not providing a possible solution, here goes:
Focus needs to be on teaching the cirriculum, not headcount or SAT scores. Cirriculums need to have more input from society as a whole--make them public record so us taxpayers can see what they're actually trying to teach and whether or not they've been successful. More emphasis on math and science, and most importantly, critical thinking and problem solving. I think the saddest statement about our educational system is the quality of consumers it turns out. The vast majority of society doesn't actually think about, let alone question anything they read or hear, they just blindly believe anything, never considering the source, credibility, contributing factors, true cause & effect, etc. Of course will upset the advertisers but I think that's a good thing.
Yeah, I read the full oral agruments of Eldred v. Ashcroft and was both impressed and disappointed. The Justices asked a lot of very good questions and displayed a solid understanding--not to mention they were in fact quite critical of Congress:
"because it does take a lot of things out of the public domain that one would think that someone in Congress would want to think hard about."
and commenting on retroactive extensions,
"one wonders what was in the minds of Congress even if somehow they didn't voilate the clause."
but the quote that was so bittersweet:
"Well, I could agree with you(Lessig), in terms of policy, that this flies directly in the face of what the Framers had in mind, absolutely. But does it violate the Constitution?"
So basically, if it just squeaks by on Constitutionality, there's no remedy for a bad law. I typcially belive that when the Constitution leaves something vague, its with great forethought--in order to allow flexibility and change. They intentionally didn't put a specific time limit in there just like they didn't explicitly define what "unreasonable" search and seizure meant but rather left it up to us to apply what's reasonable today--because what's reasonable today might not be at another time. But the assumption they made was that in granting the wiggle room, we would be competent to decide for ourselves and make the best decisions for us in our time. We dropped the ball on this one. Congress has been acting in a way that is (barely) Constitutional but not in the best interests of society. I can't help but to keep thinking that the campaign finance and lobbying are the root of this like many other issues. Only when congress is no longer owned by special interests does our government really work the way the Framers had in mind. Oh and campaign contributions are not speech. Giving money to some one in exchage for favors is bribery--which is free speech.
This is the best solution I've ever heard as far as actually getting the system improved given the current realities (media companies owning so many legisltors). While pretty much all of us here favor drastic changes to the system that basically screw the big companies (not in absolute terms but relative to their current sweetheart deal), and it certainly would be better for society as a whole, it's just not realistic given the current envrinment. All those great ideas are just wonderful, except they require earth-shattering campaign finance reform to actually happen. Your idea actually gives the big companies something more--ie legitimate long term copyright as opposed to their questionable (even in the eyes of the Supreme Court) repeated legislative extensions. Society gets the other XX % of stuff back in the public domain--much of which would otherwise be gone forever.
Best possible solution? No. Best solution for the real world? Possibly.
Yeah the targeting aspect should be a selling point. BUT the more intelligent and/or cynical people are, the less susceptible they are to television commercials. Geeks tend to be higher on the intelligence and/or cynical side so even well targeted advertising will probably still have a low success rate. With few exceptions, the industry (television advertising) is based on mild brainwashing. Ads that offer something I'm interested in, minus the lies and fluff, just presenting the facts are about the only ones that get me to actually consider buying. So for the targetting to work, the commercials would need to be completely different too--for an industry that is very creative in so many ways, they're just not willing to abandon the assumptions they've been working on for years.
How about something along the lines of binding arbitration. Preliminary courts are created, and all civil suits must go through the preliminary court. Both sides are allowed very brief statements--say a one page document of facts and one page explaining their case. A judge says either 'yep this can continue forward' or 'nope get outta here.' Either side can appeal and go through what the same process we have now, except loser pays both sides leagal fees and the burden of proof is now higher because it's an appeal--say switch it from "preponderance of evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Such a system should protect the small guy better because the initial judge would/should be more likely to thin out frivalous suits. In the event that the big company appeals, the higher burden of proof along with the loser pays should protect the small guy better, and yet everyone is still free to spend their (possibly) hard-earned millions of dollars on lawyers.
I would think it would help the courts out by clearing a lot of faultless lawsuits, letting them spend more time on real ones. It would speed things up a ton a well and at least in my mind, would shift the focus to be more fact based and less about stacks of motions.
Maybe it would be better to have the loser of the preliminary hearing pay rather than the loser of the appeal.
Not well enough. There is an overriding fear of being sued in America, so much so...
I'm trying to decide if think that should be considered or not. It's a indirect symptom, and a trailing one at that--and even if everything were magically fixed, this fear would still exist for some time. Granted I agree that the fear of suit is perhaps the single greatest harm and worse yet the least visible. BigCo, Inc sends completely groundless cease & desist letter to Joe Average, 9 times out of 10, Joe does and that's the end of it. And unless you are Joe, you never even hear about it.
Slashdot Mirror
That part really amused me--so they're saying the states have the right to do this, but the feds don't. That's a pretty bad way to win an argument.
Personally I've always been most fascinated by Bob Taylor's abilities to assemble brilliant, and more importanly productive people. Perhaps more important than the actual products from PARC (though obviously closely related) was the people and what they did there as well as in their own or other companies.
And if nothing else, hopefully the continued attention to PARC will teach management, not only the importance of putting together quality teams, but also giving them the freedom to create. Pure research seems to be at an alltime low--academia seems to be getting so much funding from corporate interests, inevitably with strings attached. Companies seem to be letting marketing & market research dictate the direction of R&D. Hopefully PARC reminds people that sometimes you need to put smart people together & let them do what they want in order to get really revolutionary ideas.
Just think where we would be today, if he would have been able to wrap up his "intellectual property" the way corporations do now.
No that doesn't work either because a house is a real, tangible thing, so it can actually belong to and be owned by some one. An idea on the other hand is not. The moment you share an idea, it is replicated into the mind of those who see/hear/read it. In order to promote the creation and exchange of ideas, if you copyright an idea, you are given a "limited-term" (hah) monopoly on the right to copy the idea. Copyright is a contract, you get the protection for a period and in tern, it becomes public domain at the end of the period. If you don't agree to the terms, they you're free to not copyright your idea and welcome to come up with some other way to make money off of it. The mortage analogy is accurate not in terms of the house, but that wasn't the point. The point was that copyright is a contract, just like a mortgage, and the terms of the contract shouldn't be allowed to be changed unless both parties agree to the change.
And beyond just Disney, this question looms large on the issue as a whole. When a copyright runs out, the holder doesn't have any requirement to actually make the piece available to the public. I guess maybe this is the role of the library of congress? But they don't actually have every book, movie, etc. I mean how would they, books possibly, but what format would they have gotten the original moves in that they'd still be valid and useful today? Yet another major problem with copyright terms that outlast the media their printed on.
And if nothing else, it got some of the Justices of the Supreme Court to come out and openly criticize Congress and put it in writing that they believed they didn't have the best interests of the public in mind. That alone was worth the price of admission!
But the system has failed miserably in that congress passed a law that was not in the best interests of society as a whole--becuase they were bought. Until campaign finance reform makes the bribery and quid pro quo illegal, our system is broken.
There's nothing wrong with Disney fighting for their right to keep Mickey. I understand they have every right to try and do whatever is in their best interests and to hell with the rest of us. But our lawmakers are supposed to act in the best interests of all of us, not just one company. When Disney created (stole) Mickey in the first place, they knew that they would only have exclusive rights to his likeness for a limited term--they were fully aware of this because they have taken countless works from the public domain for their own use.
However, for the most part, Disney and their copyrights really aren't the issue. We don't care at all about Mickey. Disney could keep Mickey forever for all we care. The problem is that there are approximately 10,000 books that would have gone into public domain this year alone had the copyright not been extended. Of these, roughly 175 are still in print. So about 9,825 books will basically be gone forever because the copyright owner won't print them any more and yet they won't be released into the public domain. That's what we're most concerned about. The vast majority of the books that were printed three quarters of a century ago are either gone completely or soon will be because in most cases the copyright holder is either gone, doesn't care or won't re-print a book because of the expense. For the overwhelming majority of works that are protected, all profit has long since been milked dry and moving said creations into public domain has no harm to anyone. Even though it's completely against the constitution and common decency, most of us would be willing to let the Disney's keep their Mickey's and whatever else they wanted in exchange for getting the everything else into public domain. There's nothing wrong with Disney fighting for their right to keep Mickey. I understand they have every right to try and do whatever is in their best interests and to hell with the rest of us. But our lawmakers are supposed to act in the best interests of all of us, not just one company. When Disney created (stole) Mickey in the first place, they knew that they would only have exclusive rights to his likeness for a limited term--they were fully aware of this because they have taken countless works from the public domain for their own use. However, for the most part, Disney and their copyrights really aren't the issue. We don't care at all about Mickey. Disney could keep Mickey forever for all we care. The problem is that there are approximately 10,000 books that would have gone into public domain this year alone had the copyright not been extended. Of these, roughly 175 are still in print. So about 9,825 books will basically be gone forever because the copyright owner won't print them any more and yet they won't be released into the public domain. That's what we're most concerned about. The vast majority of the books that were printed three quarters of a century ago are either gone completely or soon will be because in most cases the copyright holder is either gone, doesn't care or won't re-print a book because of the expense. For the overwhelming majority of works that are protected, all profit has long since been milked dry and moving said creations into public domain has no harm to anyone. Even though it's completely against the constitution and common decency, most of us would be willing to let the Disney's keep their Mickey's and whatever else they wanted in exchange for getting the everything else into public domain.
Yes. Yes. Yes. The underlying problem at the heart of so many issues, is campaign finance. Copyright acts are extended indefinitely, clearly to the detriment to society as a whole. No suprise, because there are tons of laws passed that are beneficial to a specific company or industry and harmful to everyone else. Until buying votes is illegal, (most of) our lawmakers will always side with the special interests stuffing their pockets. One of the arguments is that campaign contributions are speech (load of crap) and corporations have a right to free speech. As far as I'm concerned, people are people, corporations are not people. I've yet to hear a good argument as to what good is served by giving a imaginary legal entity citizenship.
Second, it seems entirely unreasonable to make the amount each victim gets based on how many victims there are. If they broke the law and I am an injured party with a valid claim on the settlement, how does it matter in the least whether one or a billion others were also injured? Essentially this means that a company can break the law and illegally over charge millions of customers and it costs them the same as if they did it to a handful. I love the tone that sends--I might as well screw over as many people as possible, if I'm caught, I pay the same price either way.
Finally this statement got my attention:
In other words, the $67 million is actually $67 million minus their attorney's fees, administrative fees and whatever they can tack on. Tell me this, how the harry hell can you take your attorney fees out of the settlement you're supposed to pay to your victims? So in the end, it might be more like $40 million or something for overcharging consumers by $480 million AND no admission of guilt or consent decree so they can continue the practice as if nothing happened. Wow, now there's a business model the VC's should be drooling over!Yes they absolutely do have a business model like the console gaming industry--they sell printers fairly cheap, often at or below cost when rebates are included, and make the money back by selling toner cartridges. This business model is failing because of competition (which is a Good Thing) so they're using the DMCA to kill competition. Of course they chose the business model so why they think anyone will take their side or feel sorry for them is beyond me.
Not that they necessarily would or should have made the list anyway, but from what I understand, they exclude companies that are undergoing mergers. We'll see whether HPaq returns next year.
IANAL (but I watch a lot of law & order ;) As long as a judge has decided there is probable cause to issue a warrant, then what's the big deal. I'm as big of a supporter of privacy and constitutional rights as anyone, and legitimate, valid search warrants are consistent with those rights. Whether it's through log files of a website or physical evidence in the real world it shouldn't matter-if everything is kosher then the cops should be able to get evidence to catch the bad guys. In this case, the first part of the request looks fine, they have requested logs from one week--while I wish more info was given, hopefully the judge who granted the warrant was presented more detailed information and thus granted the warrant. And there is a remedy for situations where judges grant a warrant without enough probable cause--it should be appealed and the appeals court can throw out the search and conviction. I do have a problem with the second request--requesting any logs should not nearly specific enough to be valid
As far as I'm concerned, laws banning cloning are unnecessary and misguided. Science is moving ahead in the rest of the world, to try and ignore it is short-sighted. Rather than banning cloning and research, scientists should be free to create a human clone, with full understanding that if they screw anything up and the child is in any way in pain or "less than human" the punishment should be severe.
The idea that a purchase of Macromedia would be to put Apple out of business is absolutely laughable. Such an acquisition could be about any or all of:
This one lists 1994-1996.
And for good measure, here is a cached NY Times article listing major MS products their main competition and how they got the product. It's a little dated (from Oct. 1998) for example, it lists Visio as a PowerPoint competitor.
I'd love to spend some time doing a more thorough review of all their past acquisitions and what happened to the technology they bought but I suspect I won't have the time so if this is a starting point for some one else to do so, great. Anecdotally I'm afraid a fair number of their acquisitions were to eliminate the competition and kill the technology rather than actually acquire the technology to improve their products and I would love to see a factual assessment of their acquisitions.
Seriously why is it that so many Slashdotters are reasonable when it comes to the right tool for the job attitude on most things, but because a lot of ads and annoying skip intros are done in Flash, they villify the tool. Fact of the matter is Flash is the right tool for some jobs, and despite all the abuse by "me-to" splash screen creators, there are a lot of things Flash does really well. And do you honestly think that if Flash vanished off the face of the planet tomorrow, there'd suddenly be less ads or ads would be less obnoxious?
I was hoping for some interesting commentary and speculation on the Microsoft buying Macromedia rumors and instead found an anti-Flash flame war. Sorry for the soapbox, but it's just disappointing.
What about the father? I'd say it's very much his damn business. Ignoring the main point of contention, (at what point the cells are a baby or human) if your argument is that this mass of cells belongs to the mother to do what she pleases, tell me why half of it does not belong to the father? If you want to play this as a property rights game then at least part of the fetus belongs to the father.
FWIW, being a brand new father, I don't in the least agree with this "it" business and am merely trying to objectifiy what I consider a human for the sake of dicussion and because I understand that this is my opinion and others disagree. I would love to hear some one tell me that my daughter was any less human than them when she would get the hiccups while she was still in the womb.
That's exactly what I've been arguing for some time. For the most part, unsolicited spam is illegal, but it's not enforcable because the spammers change ISPs and/or are offshore, so they can't be found or punished. But there is almost always a contact of some sort in the email in order for the "customer" to give the company money. Businesses are knowingly paying some one to do something illegal, so they should be held culpable too. It's no different that holding a company that knowingly sells stolen goods liable. Just because they aren't the ones breaking the law doesn't mean they can profit from the crime.
Because throwing more money at a problem always fixes is right? Don't get me wrong, I believe in spending on eduction big time because it's one of the few public services where there's actually any sort of return on investment to society. But admit that spending more money on education will only (partially) cover up the underlying problems at best. At least in my state (WI) there are two major goals of the public education system:
- have as many students as possible show up on the day they do headcounts to determine state funding
- send as many students to college as possible.
If the problems with this aren't obvious enough, let me be explain. Students who aren't college bound are not educated on how to function in the world. Big problem there. Students who are prepped for college-entry aren't actually prepared for college. And they aren't educated on how to function in the world either.So I can't be criticized for not providing a possible solution, here goes:
Focus needs to be on teaching the cirriculum, not headcount or SAT scores. Cirriculums need to have more input from society as a whole--make them public record so us taxpayers can see what they're actually trying to teach and whether or not they've been successful. More emphasis on math and science, and most importantly, critical thinking and problem solving. I think the saddest statement about our educational system is the quality of consumers it turns out. The vast majority of society doesn't actually think about, let alone question anything they read or hear, they just blindly believe anything, never considering the source, credibility, contributing factors, true cause & effect, etc. Of course will upset the advertisers but I think that's a good thing.
Best possible solution? No. Best solution for the real world? Possibly.
Yeah the targeting aspect should be a selling point. BUT the more intelligent and/or cynical people are, the less susceptible they are to television commercials. Geeks tend to be higher on the intelligence and/or cynical side so even well targeted advertising will probably still have a low success rate. With few exceptions, the industry (television advertising) is based on mild brainwashing. Ads that offer something I'm interested in, minus the lies and fluff, just presenting the facts are about the only ones that get me to actually consider buying. So for the targetting to work, the commercials would need to be completely different too--for an industry that is very creative in so many ways, they're just not willing to abandon the assumptions they've been working on for years.
Such a system should protect the small guy better because the initial judge would/should be more likely to thin out frivalous suits. In the event that the big company appeals, the higher burden of proof along with the loser pays should protect the small guy better, and yet everyone is still free to spend their (possibly) hard-earned millions of dollars on lawyers.
I would think it would help the courts out by clearing a lot of faultless lawsuits, letting them spend more time on real ones. It would speed things up a ton a well and at least in my mind, would shift the focus to be more fact based and less about stacks of motions.
Maybe it would be better to have the loser of the preliminary hearing pay rather than the loser of the appeal.
I'm trying to decide if think that should be considered or not. It's a indirect symptom, and a trailing one at that--and even if everything were magically fixed, this fear would still exist for some time. Granted I agree that the fear of suit is perhaps the single greatest harm and worse yet the least visible. BigCo, Inc sends completely groundless cease & desist letter to Joe Average, 9 times out of 10, Joe does and that's the end of it. And unless you are Joe, you never even hear about it.