They make it harder for individuals to keep it cracked as they routinely change the keys
I've never looked into the whole sat-pirate scene... ...can anyone explain how they get the *new* key onto the box? Are they always there? Is there some kind of master-key? or do they include it in the signal as an update, and if so: why isn't it just grabbed by the cracker/hacker as it gets broadcast?
Am I missing something obvious here?
Maybe Sony would work a little harder at their DRM if they had to pay out the nose for being flimsy.
...or maybe no sane company would take up the offer: Anyone capable of writing a commercial encryption program already knows that DRM is folly. 'course that won't stop companies from trying to sell dreams to anyone that'll pay cash...
Should we arrest the pope for illegal activity done by a priest?
If the priests actions are part of church business, or at the behest of the church then, yes. If they are extracurricular activities like speeding, molesting children or robbing banks, then no. (This doesn't mean that if/when the pope finds out about illegal ventures of the priest they have any protection either....)
Should we arrest you for the illegal activity done by your mayor? / Should we arrest all members of a political party because some are involved in corruption?
Similar, but slightly different: Public officials are different in that they represent the public. The public can not punish itself... well, maybe we can vote in the same goof-ball over and over again... but that's another story. In short: no. You can not hold citizens responsible for the illegal actions because there are two choices: the public wanted this, in which case it shouldn't be illegal, or the public didn't want this, in which case it's an extracurricular activity for which the 'shareholders' are not responsible.
Your examples are confusing individuals actions with those that they make for their organisation. I don't expect you to pay part of Steve Jobs speeding ticket. What Steve does on his own time is his business. What he does on Apple's time is the shareholders business.
Furthermore, churches, cities and corporations have different goals: corporations DO NO behave ethically when there is the option of PROFIT. The advent of the limited liability corporation has granted people a mechanism by which they can do reprehensible things to their fellow man and bear none of the responsibility.
We have granted all the benefits of commerce, without demanding that those who engage in it accept the consequences of their actions. It is benefit without accountability.
Yes, I think as a shareholder you too should be responsible for the actions of the corporation in which you hold ownership. Just as your capital risk is limited by your investment, so too would your personal liability be limited. The threat of a couple hours/days in jail as a result of something *your* company did would make people much more interested in how the company did business in general, not just the financials from this past quarter.
The desires of the general population don't mean shit when the big corporations want something else,
what happened to democracy?
This has actually been my point for quite some time now, that "one (wo)man, one vote" doesn't mean shjit anymore. "One million dollars, one policy" is more like what we're calling democracy today. While far from perfect, Canada has been trying hard to limit the impact of political contributions by (at least) limiting individual contributions. There's still lots of work to be done in this area, but high level corruption* is the fundamental flaw in a democracy.
* and some might mock place like Mexico for it's street level corruption, when America has corporate and political corruption...which impacts everyone: not just those that partake.
That can only happen if the USPTO is help accountable
While I am no opponent of accountability this is suing yourself.
The USTPO is *you*. They are supposed to represent the commons: To ensure that the patent system delivers the balance between commercial interests and The Public Good (tm).
Holding them accountable is... errrm... how exactly can you hold them accountable?
Firing individuals makes it harder (more $$$) to attract new-hires -- so a more costly IP system with high turn-over and low knowledge transfer whch equates the a lower quality system
Suing the USTPO is suing yourself -- the guv *is* your money afterall -- while an individual *might* "win" at suing the guv, the public and the economy *always* loses, so while lawyers win at this, you will (like the lottery) lose on averages
I have a few patents, more than half of which I think are crap.
revoke them or at least assign them to some commons... Please! else you are a patent troll... and it sounds like you are interested in patent reform, not patent profiteering.
Firstly, patent quality needs to improve.
Never happen. It is an actual impossibility over time. I'll discuss if someone is interested in my hypothesis, but it's more than 2 sentences...
Unless you are told/informed/read other wise, a network is NOT public.
You do realise that when you made your post you made a network connection? Did you ask OSTG permission before making this network connection? So I'm guessing you weren't "told/informed" or otherwise "read" that you could make this network connection, and yet you went ahead and did in anyways...
It's actually not quite so simple.
Myself and other people run open APs... on purpose. So you can't assume that every AP private.
Web and FTP servers are (typcially) public, and you won't get into any trouble for joining their network (making a network connection is the same as joining it - with specific permissions that may vary from someone who is allowed to join via ssh for example)
But some web-servers and services are private: you can't access the "banking" web-server unless you are a bank client and there is a username/password that (hopefully!) stops you from accessing this service.
So you can't say that "web" servers are public or APs are private. Each one's public/private-status is really up to the owner of the network host, and if there is no notice, why shouldn't one assume (as one does for the web and public (anonymous even!) ftp servers that if a network accepts your connection without challenge then it's open and public? The internet can only exist as long as the default is 'accessible == public'. If we had to get permission before connecting the 'net would never have gotten off the ground.
And that is the problem with open APs and people who say that they are like doors.
Any analogy that includes the real world fails to take in account the fact that in the real world we have hundreds of years of property law and social norms that makes it "obvious" to us what trespassing is and what break'n enter is.
This same obviousness doesn't (yet?) exist in the virtual world; and (hopefully!) never will.
Some of these same questions can be asked about accessing a server on the Internet: if I request to make a connection with some server, and it lets me, have I broken a law? ok, so if I connect on port-80, using http and I breaking the law? what if I use telnet on port 120 and it lets me in?
For me, the bottom line is that the visual cues and social norms simply don't (and can't) exist on the internet. While it may be true that most people don't want to allow anonymous telnet access on port 120 we shouldn't assume that anyone who connects in such a way is automatically breaking some law.
The burden should be on the service operator to at least make a cursory effort to in some way state that this is a private connection. This could be anything from a username/password to even anonymous login with a banner (delivered to every connection) that this is a private port and that use of it was private. At that point: it's private.
But this was a guy in a car parked outside the house.
so? are you suggesting that the AP in my home is by definition private? I don't think so. Mine's open. Feel free to stop by and use it.
He had no other business to be parked there
Streets are (still!?) public property. He has the same right to be on that road as the home owner.
It's like he just walked into their yard to use their garden hose to wash his car,
He did not trespass so it's nothing like that.
He wasn't waiting for a bus and idly checking to see if he could go on the net while he waited.
So it's ok for a guy waiting for a bus, or a neighbor to accidentally connect, but a guy in a car has no business even being parked there? I'm a little confused by your rationale.
He had probably wardrove it to begin with
evil ward-drivers... maybe we need a new law... and a list to keep track of names of people who are known to war-drive.
, it certainly wasn't a coincidental connection.
Well I don't know what coincidence has to do with this... but it was random, if that counts. He picked randomly from possible open APs.
I'm back to: if you don't want anyone else connecting to your AP: lock it. It won't keep out the (determined) cracker but it will tell people it's not public. Then you have a case.
The virtual world is *nothing* like the real world, and doesn't have *any* of the social norms that we have in the real world (like fences and accepted lawn-markers/sizes so people know what's private and what's not). Analogies that use the real world are all lacking because ideas, bits, broadcasts and all that other non-tangible stuff just can't be represented by the real world.
So your solution is a system where Prince, Maynard James Keenan or Trent Reznor are unable to support themselves creating music full time?
ermm... what makes you think they won't be able to make a living creating music without copyright?
First off, it's not like the record companies pay them any real money for the albums. In fact it seems like they lose money... they make their real money from touring, and copyright won't stop them from touring...
Secondly, even w/o copyright (and from TFA they're only reforming, not removing) album sales do not have to drop to zero, and proceeds from album sales to the musician also don't have to drop to zero.
Copyright changes would impact the recording industry. In a brutal way. But it wouldn't stop the artists...
The recording industry has two jobs: distribution and promotion. The Internet does both more efficiently. In capitalist economic theory when something can be done more efficiently, the old way of doing things dies off...
Care to actually address anything I said? Or is easier to make crap comments about "preference"? -and are you really going to say that Brit's got the talent of Mozart?...really?
My comments were not about "preference" (I don't actually like prince) they were about talent -- my personal preference doesn't actually change the talent of an artist. There are plenty of talented artists that never see the light of day: held back by the copyright monopolist gatekeepers that control the mass media in the US. If you won't sell them your soul, they won't let you play.
So have you actually got anything intelligent to say?
So you think that if I'm not reselling it, I should be able to take whatever I want, from anyone, for free? You just put every software, movie, pharmaceutical and music company out of business. prepare to enter a new dark ages.
Unprovable.
Unbiased research, however, suggests the opposite will be true.
Note further the modern day example of fashion, where despite a complete lack of copyright or patent new designs are continually made...they have to, to compete! And to give complete lie to your statement: there are many many many fashion companies, and many are very profitable.
As I said, this is communism.
lol.
To argue for such a system is to say you are unhappy with capitalism, and would prefer a communist system instead.
ok; if anything, the IP system we have today is anti-capitalist, and much closer to communism than a system without these protections.
Under the current system there is no competition: you get a total monopoly (even independent work doesn't get you out of it!). A monopoly is the antithesis of competition. Methinks you need to review some basic definitions before you start calling things "communist".... it's like those guys that used to call the GPL communist. ...yer funny.
It sounds like you dont want the best writers and the best movie directros of software engineers to carry on doing their work, you just want the ones who are best at promoting their work in lieu of actual sales?
uhm... the best marketed products generally get the most sales. Today. With all the IP laws we have. From the dawn of New Kids (and maybe before?) high-powered music execs have been Fabricating bands. They spend millions promoting their "product" which has nothing to do with talent (not saying they can't lip sync), but with their (perceived) marketability.
It is in fact far more probable that without entertainment industry backing most musicians would be on more equal footing for marketing expertise, and so it would in fact be again more likely that the cream would in fact rise to the top. Something that is impossible today.
We already have a system that decides what entertainment products are the best, called the free market. If you write something excellent, millions buy it.
Yer kidding, right? So the most talented musicians of our time are Brittney, Christina and Justin? You're going to put them on the same level as a Mozart? Or Prince? Or Maynard James Keenan? or Trent Reznor? These guys don't sell anywhere near the number of albums... talent != sales. Marketing == sales. So we have a system that already behaves in the way you are suggesting is wrong...
The system has worked pretty well
The system is badly broken. It's run by people who don't care about music. Their interest is not in promoting the arts (as the US Constition makes allowance for), their interest is in squeezing every last penny of profit for themselves, and they let nothing get in the way of that: not new technology, not societal changes and certainly not the artists or customers.
its a pity that a bunch of kids want to pull the whole system down rather than shell out a few dollars for entirely optional luxury goods like books and Cds now and then
It's a pity the music industry has it's head up it's collective arse and has been raping and pillaging (and they call downloaders pirates) the culture of a nation for almost a hundred years. What you call "optional luxury goods" is in fact the Culture of America. Is society and culture a luxury good in your world? Or is culture something that ties us all together, forming the fabric of society, holding us together, giving us a commonality that helps define us?
Or do you really believe culture is just another thing to be monetized?
Patents are a necessary part of scientific development.
False. This myth is perpetuated by the pharma's who get rich off the current system.
At absolute most you can suggest that there is more "scientific development" with patents than without - though the actual research on the subject seems to disagree. It is factually false to state that patents are necessary to cause innovation.
I get this same argument discussing linux vs windows.
Granting someone else control over your box may* make it easier for you to use, but it sure as hell isn't your box anymore.
Back on the topic of media specifically, I'm afraid that most people have no idea how much the BigCo's are pushing for control. If people knew, would they care? I doubt most people will even see a problem with broadcast flags and devices that refuse to play content... People are complacent, and have learned to accept a (imho) fairly high level of suck in exchange for not having to think.
(*But no guarantee... while I have no 1st hand experience with it, Vista reads like a nightmare compared to any reasonable modern distro)
What exactly does that mean? We do something no one else does, something no other company wants to do. They prefer to build giant landfills...[snip]
You are confusing a patent discussion with an environmental one. I fully support incentives to keep the world green. I don't support patents. These two ideas are in no way mutually exclusive. However, this statement also leaves me with a couple of questions: if they don't actually do what you do, then why do they want your secrets? and beyond that, I suggest that this is another example of the evils of patents: Your company would rather see more pollution than allow competition. hmmm, maybe you aren't part of the solution?
You say, "You provide a service." What exactly does that mean?
That means you are charging for your time, as opposed to charging for an item. Since an hour of time is an hour of time is an hour of time anyone providing a service has the same costs. An hour of time. This is important when discussion patents, because (presumably) you have a machine that allows you to perform the task in a lesser time than your competitors. This means that you can charge less than they do and still profit from the job -- and presumably it's not a nickel savings (since they are interested in appropriating your idea), so until they implement your idea you can not only undercut them, but you can increase your profit as well, and since you've undercut them you get more business. Out of all this extra profit you can pay back your R&D. (Real business doesn't set it's price on costs, but on what the market will pay -just ask the RIAA).
I'm glad you choose to live in a world of unlimited serfdom
Methinks you have this backwards: I choose to live in a world where no one 'owns' ideas... this 'owning' of ideas is completely unnatural. There is no natural exclusivity with regards to ideas. Quite the opposite: Humankind has gotten where we have by sharing ideas; not hoarding them.
there are sunken costs that are impossible to recover without patent protection.
This is no fact. The only fact in this discussion is that the artificial barriers we have in place today provide a mechanism by which a business may exclude others in hopes of a profit. This has lead to organizations (like Microsoft for example) that try and build multi-billion dollar software programs in one sitting. For this endeavor it just might require copyright protection to get a payback. Contrast with Linux et.al and consider that if Linux were written by one company it would probably also have cost in the billions. Yet Linux exists and it exists in an un-copyright: where anyone can re-use someone else's code without paying. And worse for your argument is BSD, where I can not only take your code for free, I don't even give you back my changes!
Now apply this idea to patents: most ideas (perhaps 99.9999%) are neither new nor novel. They are a 0.001% increment over everything that the inventor knew before. If instead of trying to build it all yourself (even if you interpret this to mean: everything in public domain, 'cause no one builds *everything* themselves), you collaborate and (hey this fits you perfect!) make your money by offering your service in a competitive environment. Like Red Hat does.
With this collaborative approach humans progress (just like we have for thousands of years) and no one needs to sink a billion dollars in r&d.
If, after all this, we discover that there is still something mankind _requires_ that simply costs too much then we can generally expect the government will provide appropriate incentives etc to make it worthwhile. Like they do with environmental incentives: they offer rebates and grants to create and innovate something that current economic models make very unprofitable. And it works. Companies make and sell solar panels and they made them and sold them long before it was remotely profitable. For the average home,
We live or die by our patents.
If we didn't have a patent on our core equipment, we would not be in business.
We're primarily a soil remediation/washing company;
Ok; so your basic assertion is that your business would go bankrupt w/o patent protection. imho? then it should.
That might sound harsh, but it's a reality....and here's why:
The *only* reason (based on what you've written) that you would go bankrupt in the face of competition is if you're not efficient and your competition is.
In other words, you believe you can only obtain profitable business by being the only player.
But wait! You're a _service_ business. You charge to provide the service of dealing with polluted soil. Even if your competitor 'stole' your technology they would still have operating costs, just like you do. Liberating your technology doesn't mean they can do it and you can't. That's the nice bit about ideas and such: we can all have them w/o taking anything away from anyone else.
because someone would literally steal our equipment
...'course this has nothing to do with patents...
Do I think a patent system, in principle, is a good idea? Yes.
While it sounds good on paper I fear that any such system quickly deteriorates into the system we have today. There is no sustainable way to run such a patent system. And a patent system costs money. So if we can't get a return, why expend the effort?
As usual, I invite any-sayers to read this before applying flamage to my comments. And actually read it, dammmit.
"If I can't out-compete you, I'm going to try to out-litigate you"
Maybe I just don't see it elsewhere, but it seems that this is an American phenomenon.
For example, when vehicle emissions standards starting increasing a while back, US automakers hired lobyists to change the law, while the Japanese hired engineers to meet the law.
One country's cars now meet emissions world wide, and the other makes cars that can't be sold in various markets.
I know lobbying is not the same as litigating, but imho it's the same mentality: If you can't compete with your product, compete by working the legal system.
Exactly. They are the agents acting on behalf of the recording companies. They are not the recording companies, but one must assume that they are doing the bidding of the recording companies.
Therefore, most of the comments that confuse the two are not incorrect: An action taken by your agent on your behalf is the same as an action taken by you directly.
They are asking the ISP:
"Tell me who downloaded file X on day Y."
No, they're asking who was assigned an IP address from a computer image.
Even if we work under the assumption that ISPs could, with 100% certainty, provide a relationship between date/time & IP address and a subscriber we are still left with two fundamental problems:
this is all based on a computer generated image (photoshop or gimp anyone?)
the 'subscriber' might not be the 'user' that is displayed in the screen-shot (multi-user house, open wifi etc)
How the brain-dead judiciary ever let a corporation which has a vested interest in winning the court case use a computer graphic as 'proof' of anything is beyond me.
Beyond that, there is at *best* only proof that a file that corresponds to a copyrighted work was on the system, which, again, at most has the same hash as the copyright work. This is no guarantee, hash collision is possible.
So we are left with no reliable link between IP address and an actual person, and no reliable evidence that even if we could make a link between IP address and person that they've even done anything to contravene copyright law.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I missing something obvious here?
Your examples are confusing individuals actions with those that they make for their organisation. I don't expect you to pay part of Steve Jobs speeding ticket. What Steve does on his own time is his business. What he does on Apple's time is the shareholders business.
Furthermore, churches, cities and corporations have different goals: corporations DO NO behave ethically when there is the option of PROFIT. The advent of the limited liability corporation has granted people a mechanism by which they can do reprehensible things to their fellow man and bear none of the responsibility.
We have granted all the benefits of commerce, without demanding that those who engage in it accept the consequences of their actions. It is benefit without accountability.
Yes, I think as a shareholder you too should be responsible for the actions of the corporation in which you hold ownership. Just as your capital risk is limited by your investment, so too would your personal liability be limited. The threat of a couple hours/days in jail as a result of something *your* company did would make people much more interested in how the company did business in general, not just the financials from this past quarter.
This has actually been my point for quite some time now, that "one (wo)man, one vote" doesn't mean shjit anymore. "One million dollars, one policy" is more like what we're calling democracy today. While far from perfect, Canada has been trying hard to limit the impact of political contributions by (at least) limiting individual contributions. There's still lots of work to be done in this area, but high level corruption* is the fundamental flaw in a democracy.
* and some might mock place like Mexico for it's street level corruption, when America has corporate and political corruption...which impacts everyone: not just those that partake.
The USTPO is *you*. They are supposed to represent the commons: To ensure that the patent system delivers the balance between commercial interests and The Public Good (tm).
Holding them accountable is ... errrm... how exactly can you hold them accountable?
revoke them or at least assign them to some commons... Please! else you are a patent troll... and it sounds like you are interested in patent reform, not patent profiteering. Never happen. It is an actual impossibility over time. I'll discuss if someone is interested in my hypothesis, but it's more than 2 sentences...Firing individuals makes it harder (more $$$) to attract new-hires -- so a more costly IP system with high turn-over and low knowledge transfer whch equates the a lower quality system
Suing the USTPO is suing yourself -- the guv *is* your money afterall -- while an individual *might* "win" at suing the guv, the public and the economy *always* loses, so while lawyers win at this, you will (like the lottery) lose on averages
It's actually not quite so simple.
Myself and other people run open APs ... on purpose. So you can't assume that every AP private.
Web and FTP servers are (typcially) public, and you won't get into any trouble for joining their network (making a network connection is the same as joining it - with specific permissions that may vary from someone who is allowed to join via ssh for example)
But some web-servers and services are private: you can't access the "banking" web-server unless you are a bank client and there is a username/password that (hopefully!) stops you from accessing this service.
So you can't say that "web" servers are public or APs are private. Each one's public/private-status is really up to the owner of the network host, and if there is no notice, why shouldn't one assume (as one does for the web and public (anonymous even!) ftp servers that if a network accepts your connection without challenge then it's open and public? The internet can only exist as long as the default is 'accessible == public'. If we had to get permission before connecting the 'net would never have gotten off the ground.
Any analogy that includes the real world fails to take in account the fact that in the real world we have hundreds of years of property law and social norms that makes it "obvious" to us what trespassing is and what break'n enter is.
This same obviousness doesn't (yet?) exist in the virtual world; and (hopefully!) never will.
Some of these same questions can be asked about accessing a server on the Internet: if I request to make a connection with some server, and it lets me, have I broken a law? ok, so if I connect on port-80, using http and I breaking the law? what if I use telnet on port 120 and it lets me in?
For me, the bottom line is that the visual cues and social norms simply don't (and can't) exist on the internet. While it may be true that most people don't want to allow anonymous telnet access on port 120 we shouldn't assume that anyone who connects in such a way is automatically breaking some law.
The burden should be on the service operator to at least make a cursory effort to in some way state that this is a private connection. This could be anything from a username/password to even anonymous login with a banner (delivered to every connection) that this is a private port and that use of it was private. At that point: it's private.
I'm back to: if you don't want anyone else connecting to your AP: lock it. It won't keep out the (determined) cracker but it will tell people it's not public. Then you have a case.
The virtual world is *nothing* like the real world, and doesn't have *any* of the social norms that we have in the real world (like fences and accepted lawn-markers/sizes so people know what's private and what's not). Analogies that use the real world are all lacking because ideas, bits, broadcasts and all that other non-tangible stuff just can't be represented by the real world.
ah the anonymous personal attack with no substantiation: the last refuge of a troll.
First off, it's not like the record companies pay them any real money for the albums. In fact it seems like they lose money... they make their real money from touring, and copyright won't stop them from touring...
Secondly, even w/o copyright (and from TFA they're only reforming, not removing) album sales do not have to drop to zero, and proceeds from album sales to the musician also don't have to drop to zero.
Copyright changes would impact the recording industry. In a brutal way. But it wouldn't stop the artists...
The recording industry has two jobs: distribution and promotion. The Internet does both more efficiently. In capitalist economic theory when something can be done more efficiently, the old way of doing things dies off...
My comments were not about "preference" (I don't actually like prince) they were about talent -- my personal preference doesn't actually change the talent of an artist. There are plenty of talented artists that never see the light of day: held back by the copyright monopolist gatekeepers that control the mass media in the US. If you won't sell them your soul, they won't let you play.
So have you actually got anything intelligent to say?
Unbiased research, however, suggests the opposite will be true.
Note further the modern day example of fashion, where despite a complete lack of copyright or patent new designs are continually made...they have to, to compete! And to give complete lie to your statement: there are many many many fashion companies, and many are very profitable.
lol. ok; if anything, the IP system we have today is anti-capitalist, and much closer to communism than a system without these protections.Under the current system there is no competition: you get a total monopoly (even independent work doesn't get you out of it!). A monopoly is the antithesis of competition. Methinks you need to review some basic definitions before you start calling things "communist".... it's like those guys that used to call the GPL communist.
...yer funny.
It is in fact far more probable that without entertainment industry backing most musicians would be on more equal footing for marketing expertise, and so it would in fact be again more likely that the cream would in fact rise to the top. Something that is impossible today. Yer kidding, right? So the most talented musicians of our time are Brittney, Christina and Justin? You're going to put them on the same level as a Mozart? Or Prince? Or Maynard James Keenan? or Trent Reznor? These guys don't sell anywhere near the number of albums
Or do you really believe culture is just another thing to be monetized?
At absolute most you can suggest that there is more "scientific development" with patents than without - though the actual research on the subject seems to disagree. It is factually false to state that patents are necessary to cause innovation.
This is about independent companies seemingly unable to offer an alternative when alternatives exist.
Ford, GM, et.al offer tires from one than one manufacturer, stereos from different manufacturers etc...
Granting someone else control over your box may* make it easier for you to use, but it sure as hell isn't your box anymore.
Back on the topic of media specifically, I'm afraid that most people have no idea how much the BigCo's are pushing for control. If people knew, would they care? I doubt most people will even see a problem with broadcast flags and devices that refuse to play content...
People are complacent, and have learned to accept a (imho) fairly high level of suck in exchange for not having to think.
(*But no guarantee ... while I have no 1st hand experience with it, Vista reads like a nightmare compared to any reasonable modern distro)
You are confusing a patent discussion with an environmental one. I fully support incentives to keep the world green. I don't support patents. These two ideas are in no way mutually exclusive.
However, this statement also leaves me with a couple of questions: if they don't actually do what you do, then why do they want your secrets? and beyond that, I suggest that this is another example of the evils of patents: Your company would rather see more pollution than allow competition. hmmm, maybe you aren't part of the solution?
That means you are charging for your time, as opposed to charging for an item. Since an hour of time is an hour of time is an hour of time anyone providing a service has the same costs. An hour of time. This is important when discussion patents, because (presumably) you have a machine that allows you to perform the task in a lesser time than your competitors. This means that you can charge less than they do and still profit from the job -- and presumably it's not a nickel savings (since they are interested in appropriating your idea), so until they implement your idea you can not only undercut them, but you can increase your profit as well, and since you've undercut them you get more business. Out of all this extra profit you can pay back your R&D. (Real business doesn't set it's price on costs, but on what the market will pay -just ask the RIAA).
Methinks you have this backwards: I choose to live in a world where no one 'owns' ideas... this 'owning' of ideas is completely unnatural. There is no natural exclusivity with regards to ideas. Quite the opposite: Humankind has gotten where we have by sharing ideas; not hoarding them.
This is no fact. The only fact in this discussion is that the artificial barriers we have in place today provide a mechanism by which a business may exclude others in hopes of a profit. This has lead to organizations (like Microsoft for example) that try and build multi-billion dollar software programs in one sitting. For this endeavor it just might require copyright protection to get a payback. Contrast with Linux et.al and consider that if Linux were written by one company it would probably also have cost in the billions. Yet Linux exists and it exists in an un-copyright: where anyone can re-use someone else's code without paying. And worse for your argument is BSD, where I can not only take your code for free, I don't even give you back my changes!
Now apply this idea to patents: most ideas (perhaps 99.9999%) are neither new nor novel. They are a 0.001% increment over everything that the inventor knew before. If instead of trying to build it all yourself (even if you interpret this to mean: everything in public domain, 'cause no one builds *everything* themselves), you collaborate and (hey this fits you perfect!) make your money by offering your service in a competitive environment. Like Red Hat does.
With this collaborative approach humans progress (just like we have for thousands of years) and no one needs to sink a billion dollars in r&d.
If, after all this, we discover that there is still something mankind _requires_ that simply costs too much then we can generally expect the government will provide appropriate incentives etc to make it worthwhile. Like they do with environmental incentives: they offer rebates and grants to create and innovate something that current economic models make very unprofitable. And it works. Companies make and sell solar panels and they made them and sold them long before it was remotely profitable. For the average home,
That might sound harsh, but it's a reality. ...and here's why:
The *only* reason (based on what you've written) that you would go bankrupt in the face of competition is if you're not efficient and your competition is.
In other words, you believe you can only obtain profitable business by being the only player.
But wait! You're a _service_ business. You charge to provide the service of dealing with polluted soil. Even if your competitor 'stole' your technology they would still have operating costs, just like you do. Liberating your technology doesn't mean they can do it and you can't. That's the nice bit about ideas and such: we can all have them w/o taking anything away from anyone else.
As usual, I invite any-sayers to read this before applying flamage to my comments. And actually read it, dammmit.
I thought pointless international lawsuits were always filed in New York ?!?
For example, when vehicle emissions standards starting increasing a while back, US automakers hired lobyists to change the law, while the Japanese hired engineers to meet the law.
One country's cars now meet emissions world wide, and the other makes cars that can't be sold in various markets.
I know lobbying is not the same as litigating, but imho it's the same mentality: If you can't compete with your product, compete by working the legal system.
Therefore, most of the comments that confuse the two are not incorrect: An action taken by your agent on your behalf is the same as an action taken by you directly.
so ... when the kid says "hey, who are you and what are you doing on my computer?" , was I the only one who thought, Sony? is that you?
Even if we work under the assumption that ISPs could, with 100% certainty, provide a relationship between date/time & IP address and a subscriber we are still left with two fundamental problems:
How the brain-dead judiciary ever let a corporation which has a vested interest in winning the court case use a computer graphic as 'proof' of anything is beyond me.
Beyond that, there is at *best* only proof that a file that corresponds to a copyrighted work was on the system, which, again, at most has the same hash as the copyright work. This is no guarantee, hash collision is possible.
So we are left with no reliable link between IP address and an actual person, and no reliable evidence that even if we could make a link between IP address and person that they've even done anything to contravene copyright law.