I had the same thought. Rather than try to control what is out there already, loosen up a bit and put your personality out there on the net. Blogging, tweeting, or whatever would counter your indiscretion by giving a potential employer something to compare to.
Additionally, would you really want to work for a place that would judge you for a single line in an obscure 'zine?
This is exactly what a lawyer would tell you--fair use is a defense and not a right. There's no mention of fair use in the Constitution, but rather the defense evolved in the courts over a number of years and was a part of the 1976 Copyright Act.
With that said, our common sense tells us it's a right. We hear about cases where fair use was successfully argued and we (I think rightly) feel that we can claim similar uses as fair.
The flaw in the system is really that that fair use defense might need to be re-argued in court, should the owner of a copyrighted work decide to be a "jerk" about it.
The difference is that the Internet 2 is a network which is closed, while the larger Internet (for the most part) operates under an assumption of openness.
In an environment where broadband users largely have only 2 choices (cable or DSL), the worry is largely about "network effects." Communication technology adoption only really takes off once a large number of people are connected to the same network (what good would a telephone be if nobody had one). So, if one of the two choices for broadband connection closes their network the overall connectedness suffers. Essentially, the question would cease to be content neutral as users would be forced to decide not whether to connect to the Internet, but rather which Internet (or content) to connect to.
Hating McDonalds is a completely different point. The point is that it isn't right that game makers can profit from ads and from game sales. If I'm paying $40+ for a game, I think I am compensating the creator quite enough. If they are selling ad space to make up for what is lost by pirates, they should go the route of TV and just give the games away as a free download. Feelings about McDonald's aside, Maxis is the culprit here.
This post hints at an important issue.
Not buying the game is not going to change the fact that thousands of people will buy the game. If Maxis makes their profit and doesn't hear much complaint, why would they or other company turn down any offer to advertise in their game? Your choice to simply "not buy the game" in reality doesn't have as much effect on the marketplace as is traditionally thought.
I can't think of many items worth more than $20 which also are subsidized by advertising--charging the typical game price and making ad money on top sounds like an invitation for piracy.
This seems to be a better idea. Why not actually make the things that make noise quiet when possible? If Apple can make a silent machine, why can't other manufacturers? Spend your $$$ on something that's quiet to start with, rather than more cash to get rid of noise that shouldn't be there in the first place.
I'm surprised that companies selling stuff on the Internet isn't fighting this. Online shopping (even on a break) is one of the perks of Internet access at work. You would think the Amazons and e-bays would see this as a threat to their profits.
As I understand the article, they aren't in any way using something that they were supposed to "exchange." The article says, "transforms a latent portion of the digital television signal..." meaning that this is done on top of all of the other TV services on their bit of spectrum. In other words, they have enough bandwidth to do this in addition to their normal digital TV (this is why broadcasters were so eager to get their hands on these new frequencies). With that aside, it's still a shame that broadcasters will be able to greatly profit off of bandwidth they were given for free, but which is supposed to be the property of everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
I had the same thought. Rather than try to control what is out there already, loosen up a bit and put your personality out there on the net. Blogging, tweeting, or whatever would counter your indiscretion by giving a potential employer something to compare to.
Additionally, would you really want to work for a place that would judge you for a single line in an obscure 'zine?
This is exactly what a lawyer would tell you--fair use is a defense and not a right. There's no mention of fair use in the Constitution, but rather the defense evolved in the courts over a number of years and was a part of the 1976 Copyright Act.
With that said, our common sense tells us it's a right. We hear about cases where fair use was successfully argued and we (I think rightly) feel that we can claim similar uses as fair.
The flaw in the system is really that that fair use defense might need to be re-argued in court, should the owner of a copyrighted work decide to be a "jerk" about it.
The difference is that the Internet 2 is a network which is closed, while the larger Internet (for the most part) operates under an assumption of openness.
In an environment where broadband users largely have only 2 choices (cable or DSL), the worry is largely about "network effects." Communication technology adoption only really takes off once a large number of people are connected to the same network (what good would a telephone be if nobody had one). So, if one of the two choices for broadband connection closes their network the overall connectedness suffers. Essentially, the question would cease to be content neutral as users would be forced to decide not whether to connect to the Internet, but rather which Internet (or content) to connect to.
Could it be that these are just the U's who have more business w/ Intel. A lot of universities use Apple airports--could they be ranking lower?
Hating McDonalds is a completely different point. The point is that it isn't right that game makers can profit from ads and from game sales. If I'm paying $40+ for a game, I think I am compensating the creator quite enough. If they are selling ad space to make up for what is lost by pirates, they should go the route of TV and just give the games away as a free download. Feelings about McDonald's aside, Maxis is the culprit here.
This post hints at an important issue.
Not buying the game is not going to change the fact that thousands of people will buy the game. If Maxis makes their profit and doesn't hear much complaint, why would they or other company turn down any offer to advertise in their game? Your choice to simply "not buy the game" in reality doesn't have as much effect on the marketplace as is traditionally thought.
I can't think of many items worth more than $20 which also are subsidized by advertising--charging the typical game price and making ad money on top sounds like an invitation for piracy.
This seems to be a better idea. Why not actually make the things that make noise quiet when possible? If Apple can make a silent machine, why can't other manufacturers? Spend your $$$ on something that's quiet to start with, rather than more cash to get rid of noise that shouldn't be there in the first place.
I'm surprised that companies selling stuff on the Internet isn't fighting this. Online shopping (even on a break) is one of the perks of Internet access at work. You would think the Amazons and e-bays would see this as a threat to their profits.
As I understand the article, they aren't in any way using something that they were supposed to "exchange." The article says, "transforms a latent portion of the digital television signal..." meaning that this is done on top of all of the other TV services on their bit of spectrum. In other words, they have enough bandwidth to do this in addition to their normal digital TV (this is why broadcasters were so eager to get their hands on these new frequencies). With that aside, it's still a shame that broadcasters will be able to greatly profit off of bandwidth they were given for free, but which is supposed to be the property of everyone.