Ok, so we make a bill about Google Glass. And then another one about an Apple wearable computing product. And then another one about the one Samsung releases. And then one about the one Microsoft releases. And then the new Google product that is similar to but not exactly like Google Glass. And then one about.....
Before long, the laws regarding said devices will be a horrible mess. There might be instances where using Product A is legal but using the very similar Product B is illegal. People won't know what they can use when. What's more, big companies will be able to lobby to add restrictions to the usage of smaller companies' products (which might have been disruptive to the marketplace in some way). If there is a problem with the laws, they will need to be amended on a case by case by case basis.
Or we could make one uniform law that covers all cases. People will know (as much as they know the law) what is legal to use and when. Products won't be targeted with restrictions that similar products don't have simply because they don't have the lobbyist might of the bigger companies. Problems in the law can be fixed once instead of being fixed a dozen or more times.
As a web developer, I don't see why any website should need a mobile app. You can use responsive design and make your site look like a mobile app when viewed on a mobile device while still looking like a normal site on laptops/desktops (see the Boston Globe's website for a good example). Users can even put shortcuts to websites on their home screens with an icon so that it looks like there's an app when all that really is happening is the website is loading in the browser. I have yet to see a reason for a plain website to need an application.
That or bugging your friends on Facebook (assuming you are on Facebook) about the app. I'd hold up Where's My Water 2 as an example here. The first Where's My Water was a fun game. I bought the full version and they even came out with additional level packs which you could buy. No problem so far.
Where's My Water 2 comes out and it's advertised as free. Except, once you get to the end of the first area, there's a "gate" which you can only pass with three "keys." At first, I thought that the keys were items scattered in levels. Nope. Instead you earn them by getting Facebook friends to use the game (aka bug your social media friends until they aren't your social media friends anymore) or you buy them for $0.99 each. Of course, there might be additional gates scattered further on in the game and every time you reach one, you'll need to pony up or bug your friends more.
Whereas the first game made these purchases look like an add-on (additional level packs), the current game makes it look like you just get stuck unless you pay again and again. The big shame is that, otherwise, I really like the game and would probably have paid for a non-free version. I just don't want to pay again and again and again every time they decide that the next level in the game requires more keys.
How is it in America's best interest? Because the people in charge actually think like this:
1) There are threats to us everywhere and we are the only ones protecting against them.
2) To effectively protect America (as per #1), we need power. Lots and lots of power.
3) Anything that reduces our power (e.g. Edward Snowden) threatens us and therefore impacts our ability to protect America.
4) Therefore, anything that reduces our power (or threatens to do so) is a threat to America and needs to be dealt with.
5) Go To Step 2.
It's an infinite loop. The more power they have, the more "potential threats" they see (real or imagined in an attempt to justify their power), and the more they see any reduction of their power as something that will cause horrible things to happen.
Exactly. They are looking at their business as "The TV Model" and think anyone that disrupts this is The Enemy. Thinking like this, it is perfectly reasonable to see Netflix as The Enemy. Of course, the content industry once saw VHS tapes as The Enemy. Once they accepted them, they made a ton of money off VHS tape rentals and sales. If the content industry were to accept the Internet in the same way, they would make tons of money, customers would get the content they want, and everyone would win. Piracy might even drop as more content is made available. At some point in the future, the content industry will be resisting yet another technological advancement and people will remember how they opposed making their content available on the Internet.
My bigger concern would be pilots being pressured into opening the door from the inside. They aren't in any immediate danger of harm, but might feel obligated to open the doors to "help those poor people on the other side." Yes, what might be happening on the other side of the doors might be horrible, but they should know that they'll be shielded from any liability so long as they immediately report it in and make an emergency landing the first opportunity they can.
I'd second this but also add that crew should also be held legally to hold no liability for anyone injured because they refused to open the cabin doors. For example, terrorist tries taking over a plane and says "If you don't open these doors, I shoot this woman!" Crew doesn't open the doors. Woman is shot. Woman's family sues the flight attendants, pilots, airline, etc over not opening the doors. At that point, the judge should be able to say "This was a terrorist situation and the law clearly exempts them from liability. They reported it in and landed ASAP. They have no liability for damage the terrorist did."
(Not sure if this is the case legally or not, but given our sue-happy society, it should be.)
And yet the content companies act as though Netflix is Public Enemy #2 (right after pirates). They seem to think that putting their content on Netflix will kill their ability to make tons of money off of the content by selling it to customers multiple times. This might be true to an extent, but the more content they make available via Netflix (and other, similar services), the less incentive people have to pirate. Yes, there will always be people who pirate. You could offer movies in a DRM-Free format for $1 each and some people would insist on pirating it instead. My advice to the content companies would be to forget about those people. They aren't potential customers. However, the guy who wants to watch Game of Thrones online, is willing to pay money for it, but finds that piracy is the easier (or only) option is a potential customer that you lose by not making your content readily available.
Not only that, but suing for $20 isn't going to be a threat to someone. Saying "if you don't settle with us for $3,000 and signing a one-sided statement saying you are a dirty, stinking pirate then we'll sue you for $10,000,000" is a threat that would be unsettling for most people. In the case of the former, you could fight it and the music companies would need to pay for thousands of lawsuits. In the case of the latter, people get scared (rightfully so since fighting a multi-million dollar lawsuit is scary business) and wind up settling. This means that the music industry doesn't need to pay massive legal fees and can make an example out of anyone foolish enough to take them on.
If personal copyright infringement (as opposed to pressing and selling DVDs) was limited to some reasonable multiple of the actual market cost of the item, copyright law could be used as intended (to fight said DVD press operations) and not to bankrupt home users based solely on an IP address in a list.
Bah! It can't be older than last Tuesday - when the world was created. Any memories you have of the time prior to last Tuesday were merely planted there as a test of your faith.
Sadly, the reason is this: Netflix has competition. Comcast (for the most part) doesn't.
If Netflix is slow and they blame Comcast, some portion of their subscribers won't believe them and will switch to Amazon Prime, iTunes, or some other video service. If Netflix is slow and the subscribers see that the blame lies with Comcast, they can protest, but for the most part can't get high speed Internet from any other company.
Comcast knows they have this power over people and won't hesitate to use it.
My wife and I have been fighting against InBloom in NY for quite awhile. They're planning on taking our kids' data (like grades, medical information, IEP status, etc) and upload it to an Amazon Cloud Server.
My three problems are:
1) It's not opt-in or even opt-out. We can outright state that we don't want our kids' data uploaded and they can just ignore us and upload it anyway.
2) Cloud server security isn't absolute. How long until it is hacked?
3) InBloom is reserving the right to sell the data to third parties who might be interested in it.
InBloom is a horrible idea. The only reason it is moving forward is that the New York state Department of Education has bought into the Gates Foundation's lobbying efforts.
My first thought when I saw this article was: "If Google Fiber is making the digital divide worse, then I hope they make it worse in my town next." I'm not holding my breath though. (Only have TWC - soon to be Comcast - here.)
Right now, Google Fiber is available in 3 cities and possibly expanding to 9 more. How do you go from that to "Google will be the only one left"? Even if they do take out the local Big ISP (Read: make it impossible for Comcast to compete because Comcast insists on giving you slower speeds for more per month), how is this any different than the local Big ISP being the only game in town? Right now, my only option for broadband Internet access is Time Warner Cable (possibly soon to be Comcast). TWC really doesn't need to do anything to win over my business because they know it's either pay them what they demand for what they offer me or go back to dial-up. If Google Fiber came to my town, they would provide much needed competition and would spur TWC to improve their offerings.
It's already happened: want to upload Youtube videos? You have to subscribe to Google+ and its invasive TOS.
So upload your videos somewhere else. If you don't like YouTube (or more specifically the TOS you need to agree to), don't use it. Are you suggesting that getting Google Fiber will require you to use YouTube instead of Vimeo, Dailymotion, or some other video service?
The telcos you complain about behave this way precisely because they're monopolies.
And the solution to breaking up the teleco monopolies is to block Google Fiber? Google has repeatedly said that they don't plan on taking Google Fiber nationwide as a major ISP. Obviously, they can change their mind on this at any time, but they aren't planning major rollouts. Right now, all Google Fiber is doing is causing the major ISPs to sweat a bit in a few select markets.
I think what it's going to take is a new president to replace the head of the TSA with somebody else to force change from the top down.
The problem is that any President or other politician who steps forward to oppose the TSA will be labeled as "soft on terrorism." If another terrorist attack happens, they would then be held responsible and voted out of office. (If they hadn't voted against X, we might have stopped it.) They might even give their future opponents ammo against them without any attack. ("Do you love America? Congressman Smith doesn't! He voted against security measures that keep you and your family safe. Vote Jones in 2016!") If there's one thing politicians love more than anything, it is staying in power. So I doubt more than a handful (who are powerless to actually make the changes needed) will step forward.
While your sprinkler system might not have put out a fire, other ones have. While your smoke detector hasn't detected smoke, others have. Same for life insurance, airbags, and helmets. Just because yours haven't been "put to the test" doesn't mean others haven't.
The equivalent with the TSA would be if the TSA at my local airport has never caught a terrorist but TSA agents in Laguardia, LAX, or some other airport did. However, no TSA agent has *EVER* caught a terrorist. You could place "special rocks that ward off terrorists" at airports and be just as effective as the TSA confiscating toothpaste and aluminum foil. Better yet, roll airport security back to pre-911 levels. You'll still catch "guy trying to bring loaded gun on board" (at least as often as they catch those guys now) but will leave "traveler just trying to bring a sandwich to eat on the flight" alone.
'Ultimately, the allure of trolling may be too strong for sadists, who presumably have limited opportunities to express their sadistic interests in a socially-desirable manner.'
All we need to do is to create opportunities for the sadists to torture people in real life, and they will leave our precious internet alone.
The DMV can only hire so many people and many trolls just aren't photogenic enough to be politicians.
Not to mention that any photo I took at Disney World would suddenly become properly of Walt Disney Company and I could be sued for sharing out photos of my vacations there without them giving me permission.
If copyright is granted at creation and downloading is illegal, how does anyone browse the web without breaking the law?
Because putting something on the web is akin to granting someone a license to view that material. The RIAA would be laughed out of court if they put a thousand MP3 on their website and then tried to prosecute the downloaders. However, problems arise when you didn't have the rights to grant someone a license to view the material in the first place. If I upload an essay I wrote or a photo I took, that's ok. As the copyright owner, I have the right to do what I want with it. If I take a photo and you upload it without my permission, though, that is not allowed. Since you have no agreement with me to put it online, you can't grant people a license to view it on the web. I would be hard pressed to take legal action against the downloaders, but suing the person who put my photo online would be relatively easy.
Suppose you grew up only being able to speak English and not even knowing that other languages existed. One day, you find a stack of papers with weird writing on them. Some have familiar symbols, some don't. How do you differentiate between writing that is just random symbols and writing that is actually language? The low hanging fruit would be to look for English letters and words in a familiar sequence. This is what we are essentially doing: Looking for life using the "alphabet" that we know. Once we spot this low hanging fruit, we will know more about life and will be able to expand our search to find more and more life.
Same experience here. I was bullied by a group of six or so kids. I could have probably fought them one on one, but their friends would have no doubt joined in. Had I been foolish to fight all six at once, I would have been beaten up and then they would have bullied me over that as well. Sometimes fighting back might help, but doing so in the wrong time can get you in trouble at best and seriously injured at worst.
What people who are bullied need to do is find people to side with them and help them. (Even if it's just someone to talk to.) In the case of the developer of CandySwipe, getting information about Candy Crush's bullying tactics out means that people might be less likely to play Candy Crush. And less players means less money for Candy Crush.
At most, they'll drop rates by some token amount while the FCC is looking (perhaps making it up with a "Merger Service Fee" hidden in the bills). Then they'll have a rate hike (blaming some channel they have a tiff with) and will make up more than the token price drop.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so we make a bill about Google Glass. And then another one about an Apple wearable computing product. And then another one about the one Samsung releases. And then one about the one Microsoft releases. And then the new Google product that is similar to but not exactly like Google Glass. And then one about.....
Before long, the laws regarding said devices will be a horrible mess. There might be instances where using Product A is legal but using the very similar Product B is illegal. People won't know what they can use when. What's more, big companies will be able to lobby to add restrictions to the usage of smaller companies' products (which might have been disruptive to the marketplace in some way). If there is a problem with the laws, they will need to be amended on a case by case by case basis.
Or we could make one uniform law that covers all cases. People will know (as much as they know the law) what is legal to use and when. Products won't be targeted with restrictions that similar products don't have simply because they don't have the lobbyist might of the bigger companies. Problems in the law can be fixed once instead of being fixed a dozen or more times.
As a web developer, I don't see why any website should need a mobile app. You can use responsive design and make your site look like a mobile app when viewed on a mobile device while still looking like a normal site on laptops/desktops (see the Boston Globe's website for a good example). Users can even put shortcuts to websites on their home screens with an icon so that it looks like there's an app when all that really is happening is the website is loading in the browser. I have yet to see a reason for a plain website to need an application.
That or bugging your friends on Facebook (assuming you are on Facebook) about the app. I'd hold up Where's My Water 2 as an example here. The first Where's My Water was a fun game. I bought the full version and they even came out with additional level packs which you could buy. No problem so far.
Where's My Water 2 comes out and it's advertised as free. Except, once you get to the end of the first area, there's a "gate" which you can only pass with three "keys." At first, I thought that the keys were items scattered in levels. Nope. Instead you earn them by getting Facebook friends to use the game (aka bug your social media friends until they aren't your social media friends anymore) or you buy them for $0.99 each. Of course, there might be additional gates scattered further on in the game and every time you reach one, you'll need to pony up or bug your friends more.
Whereas the first game made these purchases look like an add-on (additional level packs), the current game makes it look like you just get stuck unless you pay again and again. The big shame is that, otherwise, I really like the game and would probably have paid for a non-free version. I just don't want to pay again and again and again every time they decide that the next level in the game requires more keys.
How is it in America's best interest? Because the people in charge actually think like this:
1) There are threats to us everywhere and we are the only ones protecting against them.
2) To effectively protect America (as per #1), we need power. Lots and lots of power.
3) Anything that reduces our power (e.g. Edward Snowden) threatens us and therefore impacts our ability to protect America.
4) Therefore, anything that reduces our power (or threatens to do so) is a threat to America and needs to be dealt with.
5) Go To Step 2.
It's an infinite loop. The more power they have, the more "potential threats" they see (real or imagined in an attempt to justify their power), and the more they see any reduction of their power as something that will cause horrible things to happen.
Exactly. They are looking at their business as "The TV Model" and think anyone that disrupts this is The Enemy. Thinking like this, it is perfectly reasonable to see Netflix as The Enemy. Of course, the content industry once saw VHS tapes as The Enemy. Once they accepted them, they made a ton of money off VHS tape rentals and sales. If the content industry were to accept the Internet in the same way, they would make tons of money, customers would get the content they want, and everyone would win. Piracy might even drop as more content is made available. At some point in the future, the content industry will be resisting yet another technological advancement and people will remember how they opposed making their content available on the Internet.
My bigger concern would be pilots being pressured into opening the door from the inside. They aren't in any immediate danger of harm, but might feel obligated to open the doors to "help those poor people on the other side." Yes, what might be happening on the other side of the doors might be horrible, but they should know that they'll be shielded from any liability so long as they immediately report it in and make an emergency landing the first opportunity they can.
I'd second this but also add that crew should also be held legally to hold no liability for anyone injured because they refused to open the cabin doors. For example, terrorist tries taking over a plane and says "If you don't open these doors, I shoot this woman!" Crew doesn't open the doors. Woman is shot. Woman's family sues the flight attendants, pilots, airline, etc over not opening the doors. At that point, the judge should be able to say "This was a terrorist situation and the law clearly exempts them from liability. They reported it in and landed ASAP. They have no liability for damage the terrorist did."
(Not sure if this is the case legally or not, but given our sue-happy society, it should be.)
Well, there is a long and boring reason why government agencies doing this isn't racketeering. You see....
*points behind you* TERRORIST!!!! *ducks out of nearby window when you look away*
And yet the content companies act as though Netflix is Public Enemy #2 (right after pirates). They seem to think that putting their content on Netflix will kill their ability to make tons of money off of the content by selling it to customers multiple times. This might be true to an extent, but the more content they make available via Netflix (and other, similar services), the less incentive people have to pirate. Yes, there will always be people who pirate. You could offer movies in a DRM-Free format for $1 each and some people would insist on pirating it instead. My advice to the content companies would be to forget about those people. They aren't potential customers. However, the guy who wants to watch Game of Thrones online, is willing to pay money for it, but finds that piracy is the easier (or only) option is a potential customer that you lose by not making your content readily available.
Not only that, but suing for $20 isn't going to be a threat to someone. Saying "if you don't settle with us for $3,000 and signing a one-sided statement saying you are a dirty, stinking pirate then we'll sue you for $10,000,000" is a threat that would be unsettling for most people. In the case of the former, you could fight it and the music companies would need to pay for thousands of lawsuits. In the case of the latter, people get scared (rightfully so since fighting a multi-million dollar lawsuit is scary business) and wind up settling. This means that the music industry doesn't need to pay massive legal fees and can make an example out of anyone foolish enough to take them on.
If personal copyright infringement (as opposed to pressing and selling DVDs) was limited to some reasonable multiple of the actual market cost of the item, copyright law could be used as intended (to fight said DVD press operations) and not to bankrupt home users based solely on an IP address in a list.
Bah! It can't be older than last Tuesday - when the world was created. Any memories you have of the time prior to last Tuesday were merely planted there as a test of your faith.
Sadly, the reason is this: Netflix has competition. Comcast (for the most part) doesn't.
If Netflix is slow and they blame Comcast, some portion of their subscribers won't believe them and will switch to Amazon Prime, iTunes, or some other video service.
If Netflix is slow and the subscribers see that the blame lies with Comcast, they can protest, but for the most part can't get high speed Internet from any other company.
Comcast knows they have this power over people and won't hesitate to use it.
My wife and I have been fighting against InBloom in NY for quite awhile. They're planning on taking our kids' data (like grades, medical information, IEP status, etc) and upload it to an Amazon Cloud Server.
My three problems are:
1) It's not opt-in or even opt-out. We can outright state that we don't want our kids' data uploaded and they can just ignore us and upload it anyway.
2) Cloud server security isn't absolute. How long until it is hacked?
3) InBloom is reserving the right to sell the data to third parties who might be interested in it.
InBloom is a horrible idea. The only reason it is moving forward is that the New York state Department of Education has bought into the Gates Foundation's lobbying efforts.
What happens if the headline reads: "Does Betteridge's Law of Headlines apply to this headline?"
(If you answer "No", then it does apply so the answer should be "Yes", but if you answer "Yes" then it doesn't apply and you should answer "No".)
My first thought when I saw this article was: "If Google Fiber is making the digital divide worse, then I hope they make it worse in my town next." I'm not holding my breath though. (Only have TWC - soon to be Comcast - here.)
Right now, Google Fiber is available in 3 cities and possibly expanding to 9 more. How do you go from that to "Google will be the only one left"? Even if they do take out the local Big ISP (Read: make it impossible for Comcast to compete because Comcast insists on giving you slower speeds for more per month), how is this any different than the local Big ISP being the only game in town? Right now, my only option for broadband Internet access is Time Warner Cable (possibly soon to be Comcast). TWC really doesn't need to do anything to win over my business because they know it's either pay them what they demand for what they offer me or go back to dial-up. If Google Fiber came to my town, they would provide much needed competition and would spur TWC to improve their offerings.
So upload your videos somewhere else. If you don't like YouTube (or more specifically the TOS you need to agree to), don't use it. Are you suggesting that getting Google Fiber will require you to use YouTube instead of Vimeo, Dailymotion, or some other video service?
And the solution to breaking up the teleco monopolies is to block Google Fiber? Google has repeatedly said that they don't plan on taking Google Fiber nationwide as a major ISP. Obviously, they can change their mind on this at any time, but they aren't planning major rollouts. Right now, all Google Fiber is doing is causing the major ISPs to sweat a bit in a few select markets.
The problem is that any President or other politician who steps forward to oppose the TSA will be labeled as "soft on terrorism." If another terrorist attack happens, they would then be held responsible and voted out of office. (If they hadn't voted against X, we might have stopped it.) They might even give their future opponents ammo against them without any attack. ("Do you love America? Congressman Smith doesn't! He voted against security measures that keep you and your family safe. Vote Jones in 2016!") If there's one thing politicians love more than anything, it is staying in power. So I doubt more than a handful (who are powerless to actually make the changes needed) will step forward.
While your sprinkler system might not have put out a fire, other ones have. While your smoke detector hasn't detected smoke, others have. Same for life insurance, airbags, and helmets. Just because yours haven't been "put to the test" doesn't mean others haven't.
The equivalent with the TSA would be if the TSA at my local airport has never caught a terrorist but TSA agents in Laguardia, LAX, or some other airport did. However, no TSA agent has *EVER* caught a terrorist. You could place "special rocks that ward off terrorists" at airports and be just as effective as the TSA confiscating toothpaste and aluminum foil. Better yet, roll airport security back to pre-911 levels. You'll still catch "guy trying to bring loaded gun on board" (at least as often as they catch those guys now) but will leave "traveler just trying to bring a sandwich to eat on the flight" alone.
The DMV can only hire so many people and many trolls just aren't photogenic enough to be politicians.
Not to mention that any photo I took at Disney World would suddenly become properly of Walt Disney Company and I could be sued for sharing out photos of my vacations there without them giving me permission.
Because putting something on the web is akin to granting someone a license to view that material. The RIAA would be laughed out of court if they put a thousand MP3 on their website and then tried to prosecute the downloaders. However, problems arise when you didn't have the rights to grant someone a license to view the material in the first place. If I upload an essay I wrote or a photo I took, that's ok. As the copyright owner, I have the right to do what I want with it. If I take a photo and you upload it without my permission, though, that is not allowed. Since you have no agreement with me to put it online, you can't grant people a license to view it on the web. I would be hard pressed to take legal action against the downloaders, but suing the person who put my photo online would be relatively easy.
Suppose you grew up only being able to speak English and not even knowing that other languages existed. One day, you find a stack of papers with weird writing on them. Some have familiar symbols, some don't. How do you differentiate between writing that is just random symbols and writing that is actually language? The low hanging fruit would be to look for English letters and words in a familiar sequence. This is what we are essentially doing: Looking for life using the "alphabet" that we know. Once we spot this low hanging fruit, we will know more about life and will be able to expand our search to find more and more life.
And, as any Doctor Who fan will attest to, they make excellent nurses. Though exactly WHY is a dark secret.
Same experience here. I was bullied by a group of six or so kids. I could have probably fought them one on one, but their friends would have no doubt joined in. Had I been foolish to fight all six at once, I would have been beaten up and then they would have bullied me over that as well. Sometimes fighting back might help, but doing so in the wrong time can get you in trouble at best and seriously injured at worst.
What people who are bullied need to do is find people to side with them and help them. (Even if it's just someone to talk to.) In the case of the developer of CandySwipe, getting information about Candy Crush's bullying tactics out means that people might be less likely to play Candy Crush. And less players means less money for Candy Crush.
At most, they'll drop rates by some token amount while the FCC is looking (perhaps making it up with a "Merger Service Fee" hidden in the bills). Then they'll have a rate hike (blaming some channel they have a tiff with) and will make up more than the token price drop.