Let's get this straight. Software can now be "protected" by copyright, patents, and arbitrary EULAs, but despite just being an advanced mathematical notation, it's not really considered speach because it can have a functional aspect?
Do you really think JKR should have to suffer a loss of sales when someone reads your miserable derivative and decides that they don't really like Harry Potter?
I think you bring up a good issue, but aren't cases of dilusion like this much better handled with trademark law?
Is is specifically intended to protect ideas, not a particular physical object in which they are captured.
Actually, copyright doesn't protect ideas or the medium but rather the specific expression or specific work, which much more narrow than protecting ideas.
A character and a setting are VERY specific intellectual property or expressions.
Like Barney(R), the purple dinosaur who is protected vigorously primarily with trademark law.
I think RMS made a great point when he said that talking about copyrights, patents, and trademarks under the unbrella of "Intellectual Property" is primarily designed to blur the very specific balance that exists between copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
Maybe it's me, but I don't see why we can't protect both the authenticity of an author and allow fans the freedom to write their own stories with conventional copyright and trademark laws?
Do we really need these new copyright laws, or are we just being scammed by the people holding the "Intellectual Property" umbrella?
Nonviolent action in which participants refuse to obey certain laws, with the purpose of challenging the fairness of those laws.
Civil Disobedience is only two words making the concept a lot broader than your narrow defintion which limits civil disobedience to one specific type of political tactic.
Going down to the courthouse and making yourself a target is a stupid tactic that will do nothing more than make that Kazaa user look like a nut job. That tactic of protest just doesn't work anymore.
Making the RIAA hunt people down is a much more effective way of getting good publicity.
*SELLING* copyright material has always been considering copyright infringement, but until the NO THEFT ACT and DMCA, non-commercial copies of copyrighted material were considered fair use and legal.
As a matter of fact, the NO THEFT ACT was precisely legislated because the federal courts ruled a BBS owner, who posted software non-commercially was NOT in violation copyright infringement.
So in addition to price fixing, setting up cartels, they're also free to donate generously to our representatives to change the rules when they operate their business withen the existing ones.
My question to you is: Is civil disobedience moral when every other moral option has been exhausted?
It's only three years later that we're now seeing anyone else trying the same model. I have no doubt that if NetFlix hadn't tried it, nobody else would have. Nobody, period.
I guess you never heard of MovieTrak.com who launched their service in 1999. The same year NetFlix launched their service. That's probably because they're based out of the UK.
So I guess MovieTrak.com is nobody.
While others weren't as quick to launch, others quickly followed suit in 2000 and 2001.
I'm NOT denying NetFlix didn't attract competitors who were attracted by NetFlix's success. That happens with ANY new and successful business model. That's how it has ALWAYS happened, but that never stopped people from trying new business models.
The government doesn't need to give business 20-year guarantees for trying something new, you'll end up killing the whole innovation cycle that makes our small businesses competitive in the first place.
In a context where business methods are patentable, it strikes me that Netflix's is a perfect example of a business method that's original, took some doing to prove viable, and as such should be patentable.
Seriously, are you a geezer or do you just lack any imagination?
In a world of virtual machines, code morphing chips, USB memory sticks, 10 different innovations of one handed keyboards, caffeine soap, SecureID Tags with constantly changing passwords, public key encryption, Peer-2-Peer computing, Bendable Light Emissive Plastic (LEP) displays, lasers that draw images directly onto your retina, silicon chips with integrated radio transmitter/receivers, (I could really go on and on and on and on and on)
AND MOVIES RENTALS OVER THE INTERNET IMPRESSES YOU?!?!
I'm beginning to think this whole non-obvious clause is just entirely too subjective for being a valid criteria.
First of all, I'm not going to argue that NetFlix wasn't the first to offer DVD's over the Internet. They did what everybody was doing during the dot com boom.
Was DVD over the Internet original? Technically, yes....but patents aren't granted on originality alone, otherwise anything new would be eligible for a patent.
More importantly than being original, was renting DVDs over the Internet obvious? With the advent of the Internet and investment in thousands of new dot coms weren't the combination of economic conditions and new technology an imminent breeding ground for business models as obvious as Internet DVD rentals?
Seriously, if NetFlix hadnâ(TM)t been the first, do you really think there werenâ(TM)t 10 other ventures right behind NetFlix with VCâ(TM)s funding them? Were business method patents really a needed incentive during the days of irrational exuberance? I donâ(TM)t remember Pets.com raising $82.5 million dollars during their IPO for their exclusive BMâ(TM)s. Come to think of it, would you really want to grant a 20-year monopoly to a company like Pets.com?
Try to keep in mind that patents are granted to give people incentive invent new, useful, non-obvious inventions so as to promote science and technology, not a tool to hedge the risk of starting a new business model.
Every business takes risks, especially if they are trying out a new business model. Does every business deserve a 20 year monopoly for trying a new idea?
First off, it would make you seem more credible if you would learn how to -discuss- something rather than just blaring out your opinion as if you need everyone to listen to it.
I guess asserting my perspective and criticism isnâ(TM)t part of the discussion process? I guess my bolding text to highlight major points is blaring? I guess when you do it, itâ(TM)s âoediscussingâ because my two replies definitely donâ(TM)t constitute a discussion.
Youâ(TM)re right about one thing. I do want people to hear my perspective. I read other peopleâ(TM)s perspective, so in return I want people to hear my perspective.
Anything else you want to nit-pick?
1) Woolworth never got CLOSE to the scale of Walmart. 2) Even if Woolworth -had- gotten close, would that make it any more right that Walmart was following along? No, it would just make it that much worse.
Youâ(TM)re missing the point. Woolworth was very big in its day and it did a lot damage as far as competition is concerned, mostly because the local competition didnâ(TM)t know how to compete with Woolworth.
Today Woolworth stores are a dime a dozen, mostly because people copied the ideas that work and added their own. Thatâ(TM)s freedom to innovate in business. The same trend is happening to Walmart. Other stores are copying the successful parts of Walmartâ(TM)s business model, and are either competing directly or finding another niche. Do you really think Walmart is going to be the only superstore in the next 30 years?
3) How can you possibly be acting like you're fighting for small business in 1 post? I find that quite amazing.
Wow, you really are a prick. Are you trying to marginalize my concern by saying Iâ(TM)ve only contributed 1 post for small business?
If you care to read through my posting history you can see that Iâ(TM)ve been consistently free-market. Iâ(TM)ve always been against sweet-deals, over-regulation, corporate subsidies and using government to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
I understand that commissioner Powellâ(TM)s âoederegulationâ is a scam. I see the growing conglomeration of media as an overregulation problem that is the product of the FCC setting the barrier-to-entry for TV/Radio broadcasting too high for small business.
I believe that making TV/Radio broadcasting more accessible will solve our handful of companies controlling 90% of the content with economics and create opportunities.
4) Pizza Hut would have gotten shot down for trying to patent home delivery due to TONS of prior art... chinese, small mom and pop pizza stores, etc. If they did manage to get such a patent it would have been negated afterwards.
Iâ(TM)m sorry for using an example that is easy to understand. People relate better to pizza delivery as a business method than they do barcoding checkouts. Often people have a hard time understanding the difference between patenting barcoding technologies, and patenting a business model where you USE that barcoding technology.
5) Just FYI, Pizza Hut loved the delivery idea from day one. It took them a long time to roll it out to all of their markets, which allowed Dominos to dominate alot of areas. Part of the problem was with the various Pizza Hut franchises... if you'll notice, Pizza Hut started revoking franchises about the same time they went all-out with delivery. I know, since I was a delivery driver for Pizza Hut in Wichita (the home office for PH, at least until they were bought by Tricon... the same parent company as Taco Bell and KFC... technically I think PH is still based in Wichita but the real power is with Tricon) during the time that delivery was made a nation-wide priority rather than just an on again off again idea... one of my regular delivery stops was the (n
You obviously haven't seen what a large Walmart can do in a rural town. Look at the studies. A large percentage of the small businesses go down the toilet and often their employees end up at Walmart making less and with less chance of promotion.
BEFORE WALMART, THERE WAS WOOLWORTH
No. I have, but things do get better in the long run. Case and point: look at Woolworth 50 years ago. They were in the same position as Walmart. People were afraid that Woolworth was going to destroy the local retail economy.
Businesses got hit hard when Woolworth came into town and many went out of business. Eventually many businesses figured out what they needed to do to compete, by either creating new markets, adding value or experience, or filling niches ignored by the larger chains.
What if Pizza Hut Patented Pizza Delivery?
Notice I said Pizza Hut rather than Dominos. With all the overhead they had in their restaurants, do you really think Pizza Hut wanted to get into the Delivery business? It was many years AFTER Dominos popularized the business model did Pizza Hut start delivering pizza. So what if Pizza Hut patented pizza delivery? Don't you think such a patent would have given Pizza Hut peice of mind that they didn't have to worry about nimbler pizza delivery companies undercutting the overhead of thier restaurants?
Here's what I want you to ask yourself:
Do you really think the retail industry would have recovered like it did if businesses weren't free to innovate?
Imagine what would have happened if the industry was hampered with "business method" patents like:
* Using a Barcoding System in a Business Model * Using Securities Cameras in a Business Model * Using an Inventory Tracking System in a Business Model
Note the difference between being granted a patent for making a specific barcoding technology (a reason for different barcode standards) and being granted a patent for using a barcoding system in a retail context.
As if Mom-and-Pop stores don't have enough overhead, you're telling me that they should either be paying licen$e fee$ to innovate their business or invest thousands of dollars in legal fees so they can get a small peice of the "business method" patent pie?
BUSINESS PATENTS ARE BAD FOR SMALL BUSINESS. PERIOD.
So you're OK with a WalMart coming along with all their resources and wiping out NetFlix as soon as they see that a market is there worth taking? Yeesh, so much for innovation!
Are you seriously trying to convince me that these "business method" patents are needed to protect all the small businesses from the Walmarts? How convienent that you forget these "business method" patents give the Walmarts, who can afford the licenses, a nice legal advantage over any competitor who tries to compete.
Heck, Maybe they won't have to lower their prices if this continues. They'll just sue their competition!
It's funny, because the way you word it, it doesn't sound so rediculous, but you're clearly trying to leverage the "protect the little guy" argument.
1. Small businesses have been surviving the Walmarts for years without "business method" patents by innovating their business. Small companies have been surviving mostly because of their nimbleness and ability to innovate. (Which can be credited to their FREEDOM to innovate)
2. Large companies like Walmart can afford to license these "business method" patents, giving the Walmarts another advantage they didn't have before over everyother small company.
3. These patents are beginning to KILL the incentive for small companies to innovate, out of fear they'll be sued for stepping on someone's "business method" patent.
4. The software industry was innovating for YEARS without software patents. The challenge was never coming up with the ideas, but rather actually implementing those ideas.
They software industry thrived as it had plenty of enough incentive to innovate. If a software company didn't innovate fast enough, they would lose to thier competition.
Now it seems all a software company needs to do is to get a nice patent on a key piece of technology and extort licen$e$ out of the rest of the industry.
Well gee! Fame isn't a recognized currency with an exchange rate and a central bank to back it up?
Well, I'll just have to throw this fame in the bin with talent, allure, shrewdness, ingenuity, dexterity because I can't get a lousy exchange rate at the local bank.
What am I going to do?
Seriously, aren't you in the business of converting your trolls into clicks and those clicks into currency?
I'd figure if a guy like you can convert trolls into currency, you'd have no trouble with exploiting fame.
The U.S.'s lawmakers these days are just too blind-stupid about technology. And it doesn't appear to be changing. Oh yeah, and they're too easily bought by lobbyists.
I'm afraid it's geek's like you who are blind-stupid about politics.
Hatch is proposing a CRAZY proposal that will get a lot of PR. Most everybody will agree it's crazy, but half will want a moderate comprimise.
What do you get when you comprimise between destroying computers to stop P2P and doing nothing to stop P2P?
Hatch is setting up the stage for serious anti-P2P legislation, and if the majority of us keep reacting like you, WE'RE FUCKED!
We haven't found any definitive WMD in Iraq, so you're saying they didn't exist. Yeah, well we haven't found Saddam either, so does that mean he didn't exist?
You're argument might hold up if we were comparing finding 15,000 gallons of Anthrax with finding 15,000 gallons of Saddam.
If there were 15,000 gallons of Saddam, and we had secret evidence that there was 15,000 gallons of Saddam, then I would think we would have found atleast 5 gallons of Saddam.
My father works for a French aircraft manufacturer, and from what I've heard French employers despise hiring people, because once you've hired someone, getting rid of them is very expensive.
Having someone work 1 hour overtime is equally painful, let alone having someone come in Sunday evening to fix a Mission Critical System being used in other parts of the world.
I don't have anything against a 35 hour/week. Hell, I'm working a 30 hour/week, 4 days/week and I love it, but I would hate to see if government mandated.
Re:Patents've been around since the dark ages, alm
on
Steal This Idea
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I wasn't disputing that patents don't have merit.
Since something like the 14th or 15th century patents have been around. Talking about the patent system like it's a broad affront to free trade looks a lot like biting the hand that fed you.
What I am disputing is your simple minded argument. Oh, and patents go far back as the 12th century in Italy.
I'm not going to debate whether patents are good or bad, because this is a stupid debate. I understand that the patent system has given the right people the right amount of incentive to develop technology to accellerate us into the future.
Edison is a perfect example. Would he have really been so persistant if he knew he wouldn't be rewarded? Probably not.
His invention was TRUELY novel, one of a kind and would be the catalyst for an explosion of technology.
Unfortunately, the world isn't full of Edisons. Most people's ideas are stupid, obvious or pointless. We want to AVOID rewarding stupid and obvious ideas and some how reward the novel ones, especially when they make it harder for smart people to innovate.
All this is supposed to be balanced out with:
* Intelligent Patent Clerks
* A backup system to nullify obvious/imminent patents when the Patent Clerk fails to indentify obvious/imminent patents. (Let alone prior art)
* Adjustable expiration times for classes of technology so as to balance incentive so it does not obstruct innovation.
* Common Sense
Instead we have a system run overrun by lawyers who have an incentive to file as many frivilous patents and sue as many people who violate these privilous patents.
* The Little Guys gets Screwed
* The Corporations get Screwed
* Only The Lawyers Win
Do you get it now?
How about World Class Trade Negotiation Leverage?
on
Steal This Idea
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Money is Freedom.
So, let's print more money!!!
Seriously, I understand what you're saying, and I agree that there is an *almost* undeniable correlation between money and freedom. I too believe that personal wealth very much affects personal freedom, and I believe in creating wealth.
I also understand that nazi pro-consumer law hurts free enterprise when it restricts free trade, but I'm *ALSO* very familiar with pro-corporate laws/intitutions that do just as much if not more to restrict trade.
Examples of Anti-Consumer Laws/Institutions that Restrict Trade * FCC Regulation of TV/Radio which favors long-range/high-ratings broadcasting with expensive licenses. * Local/County/State/FCC Regulation of local telecommunications giving one company exclusive access to right-of-ways and infrastructure built with public money. * The US Patent Office - Costing up to $500,000 in legal fees to disqualify a patent, this institution (with the courts help) restricts the free trade and innovation of both obvious and nonobvious technology by giving every asshole the opportunity to "call dibs" for it's exclusive use while bearing very little risk to both the patent office and the filer if the patent was fucking obvious and/or shortly inevitable.
If you want to keep believing that we're #1 because purely because we're a capitalist then you need to learn a lot about "other factors".
Other Factors:
* Trade Negotion Leverage
* Natural Resources
* Corruption (Equal Justice under Law)
* Workforce Skills
* Infrastructure
You're right, the FCC doesn't ban anybody from owning a radio station, and I personally don't the FCC should limit how many radio/TV stations a company can own.
BUT!!!
Did you ever bother to ask, "How is it possible with all the available Radio and Television spectrum available, that ONLY 5 companies make up a majority?"
Radio technology has advanced at a phenominal rate, and the equipment has gotten rediculously cheap, so why don't we see smaller/nimbler radio/TV broadcasters out there, especially with so many people creating so much content on the Internet?
Could the FCC be possibly regulating the industry so that the Barrier to enter the market is so high that it effectively kills smaller/nimbler competition?
Think about it: 1. Radio/TV is sustained with advertisement which are derived from ratings. 2. There are a limited amout of ratings. 3. In order to sustain yourself as a broadcaster, you must capture a big enough slice of the pie to cover this barrier to entry. 4. The bigger the barrier the entry, the more ratings you'll need to sustain yourself.
I don't mind corporations owning as many TV, Radio stations as they want, but I want something in return.
*** Short Range TV/Radio Broadcasting ***
Since, I've been talking about Barriers to Entry, then why not lower them?
Here's how you do it:
* The FCC should Offer Inexpensive Short-Range TV/Radio Licenses, so broadcasters could operate a station on a budget of a couple thousand dollars a year rather than hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Will it happen? No fucking way. That would give any asshole to opportunity to offer the public cutting edge TV/Radio a lot cheaper than the larger broadcasters, which would SEVERELY eat into thier margins.
Could it be that free enterprise in this country is a sham? Could it be that neither Republicans or Democrats actually give a shit about equal justice and equal economic opportunity?
If you really think this is a free country, I challenge you to try to get your town to build a municipal fiber-optic infrastructure to deliver high-speed internet access and then watch how fast Verison, SBC, or whoever controls your local telecommunications infrastructure slaps so many injunctions on your ass, that it'll make you head spin until you vomit.
Fuck you, I want this country to return to a REAL free market that isn't obstructed by FCC "deregulation" (Give us real deregulation), Corporate Welfare, CEO's CIRCUMVENTING (slap THEM with the DMCA) the entire PROTECTIVE purpose of FILING remotely accurate information to the SEC, and rabid Patent/IP Lawyers litigating entire industries to death (thanks to their $28,000,000 to the democrats).
You may say this country never had a real free market. Fuck you, your socialism, and your little dog too!
Thanks, That felt pretty good.
Moot Points and Using the GPL Immorally
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Er...no. This is saying "if you use the GPL, lots of morals and politics come along with it". It doesn't say "the GPL is the only moral license". It say "the GPL is a moral license".
So what.
The author of the license (RMS) is making a claim that his license is a moral one. I disagree. He's entitled to his opinions, as I am entitled to my opinions.
IMO, The license simply establishes the rules of a contract for community software. The way I see it, it's a moral less system, which just happens to be less vulnerable to commercial exploitation than other systems.
I like the GPL. I think it's an extremely empowering tool for building standards and charity.
...but the GPL is just a tool. A legal tool.
"Tools and technology are neither good or evil. People are good and evil."
I don't know what publications you were reading, but I remember reading a lot of articles on Fortune, Forbes, C-Net, the Economist, WSJ from a variety of people who were very skeptical about the "new economy" and predicted a fallout withen a broad span. Everybody knew it was going to end. Nobody knew when. Most didn't care because there was money to be made.
That's not to say these same publications didn't also publish articles pushing the irrational exuberance.
Most people knew that they were seeing a rare event of prosperous times and that it would all have to come to an end eventually, but nobody wanted to pull thier money out of the stock market just yet.
I don't know what you expect from economists but if they could predict the ebb and flow of economies as precisely as you expect, don't you think they'd be using that information themselves or selling it at a premium?.
I'm not suggesting you blindly take an economists prediction as the gospel, but maybe you should be paying attention to thier explainations for thier predictions so you can polish your own prediction skills.
Lastly, I don't trust people by default:
* If I'm sentencing someone to prison, it's my burden to prove they are guilty.
* If someone is trying to win my trust, it's thier burden to prove they are innocent.
First of all, I'm not saying there isn't a lot of useless technology. There is. I've seen it. I've even developed some useless technology myself.
At this point it's probably too expensive to justify putting into every PDA and LAPTOP as an integrated scanner for people who don't want to carry scanners around.
Who's to say it won't be cheap enough to produce in 5-10 years? It may make Toshiba a lot of money as an integrated LCD scanner technology as it could add a lot of value to thier existing PDA/Laptop product line possibly giving them a much bigger chunk of the market.
Am I optimistically speculating? Yes. Atleast I'm not jumping the gun calling it useless.
What are you going to do then? Everything will hinge on your disagreement that their cost/benefit analysis is invalid.
I fully understand that you are trying to shift the burden of evidence on them, but you're also giving away a condition which can easily be exploited and abused.
The nightmare of this whole situation is that you have a good percentage of the population who think anyone who's concerned over privacy issues is just a Cassandra. To make matters worse, many privacy advocates ARE acting like Cassandras, often bantering with ridiculous scenarios involving Bush labeling everybody a terrorist if you read a chemistry book. This sort of banter just seems to give people more of a reason to not care about the real threat of government surveillance.
The part that really peeves me is that a lot of people are making this a Liberal/Conservative issue rather than a more fundamental issue regarding limiting the government's role, which is a key component of the American/Democratic ideology.
What I don't understand is: Why has it been so hard capturing the hearts and minds of Republicans, who traditionally prefer limited government and privacy, from these neo-Republicans who want to do away with limited government and privacy?
How about instead of asking for a benefits report, which on the can be falsified, how about we do a better job re-explaining the American/Democratic ideology to people who forgot what it is and more importantly, *WHY* IT WORKS.
Example questions that need explanation:
1. Why can't we trust law enforcement to not abuse their power? (Look to the 3rd world for answers)
2. How does the limiting of government involvement in regulating industry (Think DMCA and other laws which protect business models) help the economy?
Again, why aren't we trying to get both Republicans and Democrats to align with us? Aren't we non-partison, anti-industry-regulation, limited government group?
Both parties hurt our causes. The Democrats opened the flood gates for lawyers to infiltrate our industry with all sorts of rediculous Intellectual Property schemes, while the Republicans aim to do away with privacy via the Patriot Act.
Republicans generally hate lawyer infestation, so let's try to exploit that while they're in power....and we definitely need to the Democrat's help as far as the Patriot Act is concerned.
...in real time doesn't mean the rest of us are also incapable.
I personally have never had a problem with pair programming. A lot of the time it's like having a second pair of eyes and two extra brain hemespheres, depending who you are working with...
Pair-Programming obviously isn't for you.
I've even found pair programming to be beneficial when sitting with someone who's either learning, or lacks experience as it forces me to explain coherantly what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, which I find helps give me perspective.
Like I said, Pair-Programming obviously isn't for you.
I liked a lot of what you said, but I thought I would help you connect one thought with another...
The root problem is that we dehumanize others in our thought patterns before we ever justify our actions against them.
This is true, but I think you need to consider how poverty, opression and descrimination contribute to the dehumanizing.
I personally don't think poverty and opression directly cause dehumanization. From my experience, I believe it's the Osamas and smaller local politicians who prey on people's poverty, oppression and exploit it to facilitate the dehumanization process...
I didn't read your entire post that closely. You made it clear you understood my points, before I even made them. I really hate to be condescending/patronizing, and it wasn't warrented here.
A new 2000-2500 square foot house on a half acre costs about 150-200k here. Tack on a grand or even $500 for just 10 base T wiring, which is a feature that most people will not use, really eats into your margins as a builder. Why do it?
In many sub-urban areas (Especially here in North NJ), there is a large demand for the ultimate community home with all the ammenities. Despite the recession, there are still a lot of people who are willing to pay premium money to live in a community with everything.
In other words, it doesn't eat into the builder's margins. They make it up, and then some, by charging people willing to pay for it.
You have to remember there is an entire (growing) demographic willing to drop thousands of dollars in exclusive fashion. Even practical people are buying into the active community with all the ammenities and are paying premium $ for the priveledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Patenting things which are fundamental *atoms* of information technology should not be allowed. It would be like patenting algebra or the number pi.
Of course, because patenting an algebraic function is just silly. Right?
Let's get this straight. Software can now be "protected" by copyright, patents, and arbitrary EULAs, but despite just being an advanced mathematical notation, it's not really considered speach because it can have a functional aspect?
Do you really think JKR should have to suffer a loss of sales when someone reads your miserable derivative and decides that they don't really like Harry Potter?
I think you bring up a good issue, but aren't cases of dilusion like this much better handled with trademark law?
Is is specifically intended to protect ideas, not a particular physical object in which they are captured.
Actually, copyright doesn't protect ideas or the medium but rather the specific expression or specific work, which much more narrow than protecting ideas.
A character and a setting are VERY specific intellectual property or expressions.
Like Barney(R), the purple dinosaur who is protected vigorously primarily with trademark law.
I think RMS made a great point when he said that talking about copyrights, patents, and trademarks under the unbrella of "Intellectual Property" is primarily designed to blur the very specific balance that exists between copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
Maybe it's me, but I don't see why we can't protect both the authenticity of an author and allow fans the freedom to write their own stories with conventional copyright and trademark laws?
Do we really need these new copyright laws, or are we just being scammed by the people holding the "Intellectual Property" umbrella?
How about this definition:
Nonviolent action in which participants refuse to obey certain laws, with the purpose of challenging the fairness of those laws.
Civil Disobedience is only two words making the concept a lot broader than your narrow defintion which limits civil disobedience to one specific type of political tactic.
Going down to the courthouse and making yourself a target is a stupid tactic that will do nothing more than make that Kazaa user look like a nut job. That tactic of protest just doesn't work anymore.
Making the RIAA hunt people down is a much more effective way of getting good publicity.
*SELLING* copyright material has always been considering copyright infringement, but until the NO THEFT ACT and DMCA, non-commercial copies of copyrighted material were considered fair use and legal.
As a matter of fact, the NO THEFT ACT was precisely legislated because the federal courts ruled a BBS owner, who posted software non-commercially was NOT in violation copyright infringement.
So in addition to price fixing, setting up cartels, they're also free to donate generously to our representatives to change the rules when they operate their business withen the existing ones.
My question to you is: Is civil disobedience moral when every other moral option has been exhausted?
It's only three years later that we're now seeing anyone else trying the same model. I have no doubt that if NetFlix hadn't tried it, nobody else would have. Nobody, period.
I guess you never heard of MovieTrak.com who launched their service in 1999. The same year NetFlix launched their service. That's probably because they're based out of the UK.
So I guess MovieTrak.com is nobody.
While others weren't as quick to launch, others quickly followed suit in 2000 and 2001.
I'm NOT denying NetFlix didn't attract competitors who were attracted by NetFlix's success. That happens with ANY new and successful business model. That's how it has ALWAYS happened, but that never stopped people from trying new business models.
The government doesn't need to give business 20-year guarantees for trying something new, you'll end up killing the whole innovation cycle that makes our small businesses competitive in the first place.
In a context where business methods are patentable, it strikes me that Netflix's is a perfect example of a business method that's original, took some doing to prove viable, and as such should be patentable.
Seriously, are you a geezer or do you just lack any imagination?
In a world of virtual machines, code morphing chips, USB memory sticks, 10 different innovations of one handed keyboards, caffeine soap, SecureID Tags with constantly changing passwords, public key encryption, Peer-2-Peer computing, Bendable Light Emissive Plastic (LEP) displays, lasers that draw images directly onto your retina, silicon chips with integrated radio transmitter/receivers, (I could really go on and on and on and on and on)
AND MOVIES RENTALS OVER THE INTERNET IMPRESSES YOU?!?!
I'm beginning to think this whole non-obvious clause is just entirely too subjective for being a valid criteria.
First of all, I'm not going to argue that NetFlix wasn't the first to offer DVD's over the Internet. They did what everybody was doing during the dot com boom.
...but patents aren't granted on originality alone, otherwise anything new would be eligible for a patent.
Was DVD over the Internet original? Technically, yes.
More importantly than being original, was renting DVDs over the Internet obvious? With the advent of the Internet and investment in thousands of new dot coms weren't the combination of economic conditions and new technology an imminent breeding ground for business models as obvious as Internet DVD rentals?
Seriously, if NetFlix hadnâ(TM)t been the first, do you really think there werenâ(TM)t 10 other ventures right behind NetFlix with VCâ(TM)s funding them? Were business method patents really a needed incentive during the days of irrational exuberance? I donâ(TM)t remember Pets.com raising $82.5 million dollars during their IPO for their exclusive BMâ(TM)s. Come to think of it, would you really want to grant a 20-year monopoly to a company like Pets.com?
Try to keep in mind that patents are granted to give people incentive invent new, useful, non-obvious inventions so as to promote science and technology, not a tool to hedge the risk of starting a new business model.
Every business takes risks, especially if they are trying out a new business model. Does every business deserve a 20 year monopoly for trying a new idea?
I agree completely. However, one thing that noone has mentioned is how easy it is to get around this patent.
Why not be the first?
First off, it would make you seem more credible if you would learn how to -discuss- something rather than just blaring out your opinion as if you need everyone to listen to it.
... chinese, small mom and pop pizza stores, etc. If they did manage to get such a patent it would have been negated afterwards.
... if you'll notice, Pizza Hut started revoking franchises about the same time they went all-out with delivery. I know, since I was a delivery driver for Pizza Hut in Wichita (the home office for PH, at least until they were bought by Tricon ... the same parent company as Taco Bell and KFC ... technically I think PH is still based in Wichita but the real power is with Tricon) during the time that delivery was made a nation-wide priority rather than just an on again off again idea ... one of my regular delivery stops was the (n
I guess asserting my perspective and criticism isnâ(TM)t part of the discussion process? I guess my bolding text to highlight major points is blaring? I guess when you do it, itâ(TM)s âoediscussingâ because my two replies definitely donâ(TM)t constitute a discussion.
Youâ(TM)re right about one thing. I do want people to hear my perspective. I read other peopleâ(TM)s perspective, so in return I want people to hear my perspective.
Anything else you want to nit-pick?
1) Woolworth never got CLOSE to the scale of Walmart.
2) Even if Woolworth -had- gotten close, would that make it any more right that Walmart was following along? No, it would just make it that much worse.
Youâ(TM)re missing the point. Woolworth was very big in its day and it did a lot damage as far as competition is concerned, mostly because the local competition didnâ(TM)t know how to compete with Woolworth.
Today Woolworth stores are a dime a dozen, mostly because people copied the ideas that work and added their own. Thatâ(TM)s freedom to innovate in business. The same trend is happening to Walmart. Other stores are copying the successful parts of Walmartâ(TM)s business model, and are either competing directly or finding another niche. Do you really think Walmart is going to be the only superstore in the next 30 years?
3) How can you possibly be acting like you're fighting for small business in 1 post? I find that quite amazing.
Wow, you really are a prick. Are you trying to marginalize my concern by saying Iâ(TM)ve only contributed 1 post for small business?
If you care to read through my posting history you can see that Iâ(TM)ve been consistently free-market. Iâ(TM)ve always been against sweet-deals, over-regulation, corporate subsidies and using government to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
I understand that commissioner Powellâ(TM)s âoederegulationâ is a scam. I see the growing conglomeration of media as an overregulation problem that is the product of the FCC setting the barrier-to-entry for TV/Radio broadcasting too high for small business.
I believe that making TV/Radio broadcasting more accessible will solve our handful of companies controlling 90% of the content with economics and create opportunities.
4) Pizza Hut would have gotten shot down for trying to patent home delivery due to TONS of prior art
Iâ(TM)m sorry for using an example that is easy to understand. People relate better to pizza delivery as a business method than they do barcoding checkouts. Often people have a hard time understanding the difference between patenting barcoding technologies, and patenting a business model where you USE that barcoding technology.
5) Just FYI, Pizza Hut loved the delivery idea from day one. It took them a long time to roll it out to all of their markets, which allowed Dominos to dominate alot of areas. Part of the problem was with the various Pizza Hut franchises
You obviously haven't seen what a large Walmart can do in a rural town. Look at the studies. A large percentage of the small businesses go down the toilet and often their employees end up at Walmart making less and with less chance of promotion.
BEFORE WALMART, THERE WAS WOOLWORTH
No. I have, but things do get better in the long run. Case and point: look at Woolworth 50 years ago. They were in the same position as Walmart. People were afraid that Woolworth was going to destroy the local retail economy.
Businesses got hit hard when Woolworth came into town and many went out of business. Eventually many businesses figured out what they needed to do to compete, by either creating new markets, adding value or experience, or filling niches ignored by the larger chains.
What if Pizza Hut Patented Pizza Delivery?
Notice I said Pizza Hut rather than Dominos. With all the overhead they had in their restaurants, do you really think Pizza Hut wanted to get into the Delivery business? It was many years AFTER Dominos popularized the business model did Pizza Hut start delivering pizza. So what if Pizza Hut patented pizza delivery? Don't you think such a patent would have given Pizza Hut peice of mind that they didn't have to worry about nimbler pizza delivery companies undercutting the overhead of thier restaurants?
Here's what I want you to ask yourself:
Do you really think the retail industry would have recovered like it did if businesses weren't free to innovate?
Imagine what would have happened if the industry was hampered with "business method" patents like:
* Using a Barcoding System in a Business Model
* Using Securities Cameras in a Business Model
* Using an Inventory Tracking System in a Business Model
Note the difference between being granted a patent for making a specific barcoding technology (a reason for different barcode standards) and being granted a patent for using a barcoding system in a retail context.
As if Mom-and-Pop stores don't have enough overhead, you're telling me that they should either be paying licen$e fee$ to innovate their business or invest thousands of dollars in legal fees so they can get a small peice of the "business method" patent pie?
BUSINESS PATENTS ARE BAD FOR SMALL BUSINESS. PERIOD.
So you're OK with a WalMart coming along with all their resources and wiping out NetFlix as soon as they see that a market is there worth taking? Yeesh, so much for innovation!
Are you seriously trying to convince me that these "business method" patents are needed to protect all the small businesses from the Walmarts? How convienent that you forget these "business method" patents give the Walmarts, who can afford the licenses, a nice legal advantage over any competitor who tries to compete.
Heck, Maybe they won't have to lower their prices if this continues. They'll just sue their competition!
It's funny, because the way you word it, it doesn't sound so rediculous, but you're clearly trying to leverage the "protect the little guy" argument.
1. Small businesses have been surviving the Walmarts for years without "business method" patents by innovating their business. Small companies have been surviving mostly because of their nimbleness and ability to innovate. (Which can be credited to their FREEDOM to innovate)
2. Large companies like Walmart can afford to license these "business method" patents, giving the Walmarts another advantage they didn't have before over everyother small company.
3. These patents are beginning to KILL the incentive for small companies to innovate, out of fear they'll be sued for stepping on someone's "business method" patent.
4. The software industry was innovating for YEARS without software patents. The challenge was never coming up with the ideas, but rather actually implementing those ideas.
They software industry thrived as it had plenty of enough incentive to innovate. If a software company didn't innovate fast enough, they would lose to thier competition.
Now it seems all a software company needs to do is to get a nice patent on a key piece of technology and extort licen$e$ out of the rest of the industry.
...since you obviously don't know how to use it.
Well gee! Fame isn't a recognized currency with an exchange rate and a central bank to back it up?
Well, I'll just have to throw this fame in the bin with talent, allure, shrewdness, ingenuity, dexterity because I can't get a lousy exchange rate at the local bank.
What am I going to do?
Seriously, aren't you in the business of converting your trolls into clicks and those clicks into currency?
I'd figure if a guy like you can convert trolls into currency, you'd have no trouble with exploiting fame.
The U.S.'s lawmakers these days are just too blind-stupid about technology. And it doesn't appear to be changing. Oh yeah, and they're too easily bought by lobbyists.
I'm afraid it's geek's like you who are blind-stupid about politics.
Hatch is proposing a CRAZY proposal that will get a lot of PR. Most everybody will agree it's crazy, but half will want a moderate comprimise.
What do you get when you comprimise between destroying computers to stop P2P and doing nothing to stop P2P?
Hatch is setting up the stage for serious anti-P2P legislation, and if the majority of us keep reacting like you, WE'RE FUCKED!
Politicians pretend to be stupid. Get a clue.
Better yet. Read Machiavelli or Sun Tzu.
We haven't found any definitive WMD in Iraq, so you're saying they didn't exist. Yeah, well we haven't found Saddam either, so does that mean he didn't exist?
You're argument might hold up if we were comparing finding 15,000 gallons of Anthrax with finding 15,000 gallons of Saddam.
If there were 15,000 gallons of Saddam, and we had secret evidence that there was 15,000 gallons of Saddam, then I would think we would have found atleast 5 gallons of Saddam.
My father works for a French aircraft manufacturer, and from what I've heard French employers despise hiring people, because once you've hired someone, getting rid of them is very expensive.
Having someone work 1 hour overtime is equally painful, let alone having someone come in Sunday evening to fix a Mission Critical System being used in other parts of the world.
I don't have anything against a 35 hour/week. Hell, I'm working a 30 hour/week, 4 days/week and I love it, but I would hate to see if government mandated.
I wasn't disputing that patents don't have merit.
Since something like the 14th or 15th century patents have been around. Talking about the patent system like it's a broad affront to free trade looks a lot like biting the hand that fed you.
What I am disputing is your simple minded argument. Oh, and patents go far back as the 12th century in Italy.
I'm not going to debate whether patents are good or bad, because this is a stupid debate. I understand that the patent system has given the right people the right amount of incentive to develop technology to accellerate us into the future.
Edison is a perfect example. Would he have really been so persistant if he knew he wouldn't be rewarded? Probably not.
His invention was TRUELY novel, one of a kind and would be the catalyst for an explosion of technology.
Unfortunately, the world isn't full of Edisons. Most people's ideas are stupid, obvious or pointless. We want to AVOID rewarding stupid and obvious ideas and some how reward the novel ones, especially when they make it harder for smart people to innovate.
All this is supposed to be balanced out with:
* Intelligent Patent Clerks
* A backup system to nullify obvious/imminent patents when the Patent Clerk fails to indentify obvious/imminent patents. (Let alone prior art)
* Adjustable expiration times for classes of technology so as to balance incentive so it does not obstruct innovation.
* Common Sense
Instead we have a system run overrun by lawyers who have an incentive to file as many frivilous patents and sue as many people who violate these privilous patents.
* The Little Guys gets Screwed
* The Corporations get Screwed
* Only The Lawyers Win
Do you get it now?
Money is Freedom.
So, let's print more money!!!
Seriously, I understand what you're saying, and I agree that there is an *almost* undeniable correlation between money and freedom. I too believe that personal wealth very much affects personal freedom, and I believe in creating wealth.
I also understand that nazi pro-consumer law hurts free enterprise when it restricts free trade, but I'm *ALSO* very familiar with pro-corporate laws/intitutions that do just as much if not more to restrict trade.
Examples of Anti-Consumer Laws/Institutions that Restrict Trade
* FCC Regulation of TV/Radio which favors long-range/high-ratings broadcasting with expensive licenses.
* Local/County/State/FCC Regulation of local telecommunications giving one company exclusive access to right-of-ways and infrastructure built with public money.
* The US Patent Office - Costing up to $500,000 in legal fees to disqualify a patent, this institution (with the courts help) restricts the free trade and innovation of both obvious and nonobvious technology by giving every asshole the opportunity to "call dibs" for it's exclusive use while bearing very little risk to both the patent office and the filer if the patent was fucking obvious and/or shortly inevitable.
If you want to keep believing that we're #1 because purely because we're a capitalist then you need to learn a lot about "other factors".
Other Factors:
* Trade Negotion Leverage
* Natural Resources
* Corruption (Equal Justice under Law)
* Workforce Skills
* Infrastructure
That's just to name a few...
You're right, the FCC doesn't ban anybody from owning a radio station, and I personally don't the FCC should limit how many radio/TV stations a company can own.
BUT!!!
Did you ever bother to ask, "How is it possible with all the available Radio and Television spectrum available, that ONLY 5 companies make up a majority?"
Radio technology has advanced at a phenominal rate, and the equipment has gotten rediculously cheap, so why don't we see smaller/nimbler radio/TV broadcasters out there, especially with so many people creating so much content on the Internet?
Could the FCC be possibly regulating the industry so that the Barrier to enter the market is so high that it effectively kills smaller/nimbler competition?
Think about it:
1. Radio/TV is sustained with advertisement which are derived from ratings.
2. There are a limited amout of ratings.
3. In order to sustain yourself as a broadcaster, you must capture a big enough slice of the pie to cover this barrier to entry.
4. The bigger the barrier the entry, the more ratings you'll need to sustain yourself.
Maybe that would explain why the National Assocation of Broadcasters gave $2,502,700 dollars to various politicians.
I don't mind corporations owning as many TV, Radio stations as they want, but I want something in return.
*** Short Range TV/Radio Broadcasting ***
Since, I've been talking about Barriers to Entry, then why not lower them?
Here's how you do it:
* The FCC should Offer Inexpensive Short-Range TV/Radio Licenses, so broadcasters could operate a station on a budget of a couple thousand dollars a year rather than hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Will it happen? No fucking way. That would give any asshole to opportunity to offer the public cutting edge TV/Radio a lot cheaper than the larger broadcasters, which would SEVERELY eat into thier margins.
Could it be that free enterprise in this country is a sham? Could it be that neither Republicans or Democrats actually give a shit about equal justice and equal economic opportunity?
If you really think this is a free country, I challenge you to try to get your town to build a municipal fiber-optic infrastructure to deliver high-speed internet access and then watch how fast Verison, SBC, or whoever controls your local telecommunications infrastructure slaps so many injunctions on your ass, that it'll make you head spin until you vomit.
Fuck you, I want this country to return to a REAL free market that isn't obstructed by FCC "deregulation" (Give us real deregulation), Corporate Welfare, CEO's CIRCUMVENTING (slap THEM with the DMCA) the entire PROTECTIVE purpose of FILING remotely accurate information to the SEC, and rabid Patent/IP Lawyers litigating entire industries to death (thanks to their $28,000,000 to the democrats).
You may say this country never had a real free market. Fuck you, your socialism, and your little dog too!
Thanks, That felt pretty good.
Er...no. This is saying "if you use the GPL, lots of morals and politics come along with it". It doesn't say "the GPL is the only moral license". It say "the GPL is a moral license".
...but the GPL is just a tool. A legal tool.
So what.
The author of the license (RMS) is making a claim that his license is a moral one. I disagree. He's entitled to his opinions, as I am entitled to my opinions.
IMO, The license simply establishes the rules of a contract for community software. The way I see it, it's a moral less system, which just happens to be less vulnerable to commercial exploitation than other systems.
I like the GPL. I think it's an extremely empowering tool for building standards and charity.
"Tools and technology are neither good or evil. People are good and evil."
I don't know what publications you were reading, but I remember reading a lot of articles on Fortune, Forbes, C-Net, the Economist, WSJ from a variety of people who were very skeptical about the "new economy" and predicted a fallout withen a broad span. Everybody knew it was going to end. Nobody knew when. Most didn't care because there was money to be made.
That's not to say these same publications didn't also publish articles pushing the irrational exuberance.
Most people knew that they were seeing a rare event of prosperous times and that it would all have to come to an end eventually, but nobody wanted to pull thier money out of the stock market just yet.
I don't know what you expect from economists but if they could predict the ebb and flow of economies as precisely as you expect, don't you think they'd be using that information themselves or selling it at a premium?.
I'm not suggesting you blindly take an economists prediction as the gospel, but maybe you should be paying attention to thier explainations for thier predictions so you can polish your own prediction skills.
Lastly, I don't trust people by default:
* If I'm sentencing someone to prison, it's my burden to prove they are guilty.
* If someone is trying to win my trust, it's thier burden to prove they are innocent.
Who's to say this technology is useless?
First of all, I'm not saying there isn't a lot of useless technology. There is. I've seen it. I've even developed some useless technology myself.
At this point it's probably too expensive to justify putting into every PDA and LAPTOP as an integrated scanner for people who don't want to carry scanners around.
Who's to say it won't be cheap enough to produce in 5-10 years? It may make Toshiba a lot of money as an integrated LCD scanner technology as it could add a lot of value to thier existing PDA/Laptop product line possibly giving them a much bigger chunk of the market.
Am I optimistically speculating? Yes. Atleast I'm not jumping the gun calling it useless.
What are you going to do then? Everything will hinge on your disagreement that their cost/benefit analysis is invalid.
...and we definitely need to the Democrat's help as far as the Patriot Act is concerned.
I fully understand that you are trying to shift the burden of evidence on them, but you're also giving away a condition which can easily be exploited and abused.
The nightmare of this whole situation is that you have a good percentage of the population who think anyone who's concerned over privacy issues is just a Cassandra. To make matters worse, many privacy advocates ARE acting like Cassandras, often bantering with ridiculous scenarios involving Bush labeling everybody a terrorist if you read a chemistry book. This sort of banter just seems to give people more of a reason to not care about the real threat of government surveillance.
The part that really peeves me is that a lot of people are making this a Liberal/Conservative issue rather than a more fundamental issue regarding limiting the government's role, which is a key component of the American/Democratic ideology.
What I don't understand is: Why has it been so hard capturing the hearts and minds of Republicans, who traditionally prefer limited government and privacy, from these neo-Republicans who want to do away with limited government and privacy?
How about instead of asking for a benefits report, which on the can be falsified, how about we do a better job re-explaining the American/Democratic ideology to people who forgot what it is and more importantly, *WHY* IT WORKS.
Example questions that need explanation:
1. Why can't we trust law enforcement to not abuse their power? (Look to the 3rd world for answers)
2. How does the limiting of government involvement in regulating industry (Think DMCA and other laws which protect business models) help the economy?
Again, why aren't we trying to get both Republicans and Democrats to align with us? Aren't we non-partison, anti-industry-regulation, limited government group?
Both parties hurt our causes. The Democrats opened the flood gates for lawyers to infiltrate our industry with all sorts of rediculous Intellectual Property schemes, while the Republicans aim to do away with privacy via the Patriot Act.
Republicans generally hate lawyer infestation, so let's try to exploit that while they're in power.
...in real time doesn't mean the rest of us are also incapable.
I personally have never had a problem with pair programming. A lot of the time it's like having a second pair of eyes and two extra brain hemespheres, depending who you are working with...
Pair-Programming obviously isn't for you.
I've even found pair programming to be beneficial when sitting with someone who's either learning, or lacks experience as it forces me to explain coherantly what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, which I find helps give me perspective.
Like I said, Pair-Programming obviously isn't for you.
I liked a lot of what you said, but I thought I would help you connect one thought with another...
The root problem is that we dehumanize others in our thought patterns before we ever justify our actions against them.
This is true, but I think you need to consider how poverty, opression and descrimination contribute to the dehumanizing.
I personally don't think poverty and opression directly cause dehumanization. From my experience, I believe it's the Osamas and smaller local politicians who prey on people's poverty, oppression and exploit it to facilitate the dehumanization process...
So, you're both right...
I didn't read your entire post that closely. You made it clear you understood my points, before I even made them. I really hate to be condescending/patronizing, and it wasn't warrented here.
A new 2000-2500 square foot house on a half acre costs about 150-200k here. Tack on a grand or even $500 for just 10 base T wiring, which is a feature that most people will not use, really eats into your margins as a builder. Why do it?
In many sub-urban areas (Especially here in North NJ), there is a large demand for the ultimate community home with all the ammenities. Despite the recession, there are still a lot of people who are willing to pay premium money to live in a community with everything.
In other words, it doesn't eat into the builder's margins. They make it up, and then some, by charging people willing to pay for it.
You have to remember there is an entire (growing) demographic willing to drop thousands of dollars in exclusive fashion. Even practical people are buying into the active community with all the ammenities and are paying premium $ for the priveledge.