Kevin Stapp 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (147)
-
On the post: USPTO Fast Tracks Michael Jackson Patent Tribute
-
On the post: CwF + RtB = Techdirt
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2009 @ 10:44amRe: Re:
What's wrong with that? Techdirt is an open forum so I don't see the harm with interested but contrary parties having the same access as those who favor Techdirt's opinions.
-
On the post: Another Court Ruling In Spain Finds Personal File Sharing To Be Legal
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2009 @ 07:18amInteresting. If you download a 'legal' copy of a movie or song while in Spain then come back to the USA, is your copy a legal copy?
-
On the post: Another Court Ruling In Spain Finds Personal File Sharing To Be Legal
-
On the post: Making It Easier For Startups To Cash Out
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2009 @ 06:11amIt isn't the report period causing the issue
I don't necessarily agree the quarterly reporting system is necessarily the culprit for the focus on the short term. I think the real underlying issue is the shift of corporate ownership to large, powerful institutional owners such as hedge and pension funds. These institutional owners typically focus on near-term ROI. They exert tremendous pressure on management to meet quarterly numbers and consequently can shift management's focus to the same short-range time horizon. This often results in management making decisions that have significant downside potential over the long term to meet the near term expectations.
There are a few studies that support the idea institution ownership can have a negative impact on corporate performance over the long. There are many studies that note positive aspects as well.
http://www2.bc.edu/~tehranih/TehranianInstOwner10-06-05.pdf -
On the post: Are Free Bandwidth And Distribution Bad? Ask Susan Boyle
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 26 May, 2009 @ 09:24amThe answer for Google is simple. If content authors want a share of the revenue generated offering their content via YouTube then why not do so? However, cost should be shared as well and as the article below indicates, YouTube/Google pays a tremendous amount of money providing bandwidth but has difficulty monetizing it. I wonder how enthusiastically content providers would embrace 'revenue sharing' if they had to share the cost of the bandwidth/server/storage costs as well then ended up owing Google for streaming content for them? Even better would be Google demanding a share of the revenue for the traffic they send to author's content. Notice the NYTime neglects to mention how much traffic is being driven to Britain's Got Talent sites? Or how much more interest/viewership the show got as a result of the free advertising from YouTube? http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/26/when-13-billion-people-are-too-many/
-
On the post: Revisiting Newspapers' Role In Democracy: New Research Suggests An Impact
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2009 @ 09:04amCorrelation of Cause and Effect
I think this is an erroneous correlation of cause and effect. For example, the story says more incumbents won re-election and fewer people ran for office. So how does the absence of the newspaper correlate as the cause for this effect? You could equally argue the effect of fewer new candidates running naturally causes a higher chance of an incumbent winning.
It should be noted there is another paper in this locality so I don't see there is necessarily a correlation that the closure of one paper caused a change in the political theater.
The Post was a distant second to the Cincinnati Enquirer when it closed. It only had a circulation of 27,000. Cincinnati has a population of over 350,000 so it stretches credibility to claim a circulation that reached only about 10% of the adult population has such a far reaching and immediate impact.
The post closed in January 2007. I wonder how many candidates had declared prior to the close of the paper. If fewer candidates were declaring before the Post's demise then the there isn't really a correlation between the closure and new entrants into politics. Political interest may have declining long before the Post exited the scene.
And finally, let's not forget there was a bruising presidential primary campaign underway and a financial shock reverberating through the economy, both of which I am more inclined to believe had greater impact on politics than some low circulation local daily. -
On the post: Section 230 Does NOT Mean That Online Publishers Have Different Rules
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2009 @ 10:01amRe:
Let's set aside the fact anyone can sue regardless of the merits of the case.
Manufacturers such as Ford can be sued for liability due to product defect. If someone runs over you because they are drunk then Ford isn't liable. If someone runs over you because the brakes failed due to a faulty design then Ford is liable.
In the case of gun manufacturers I believe the suits weren't based on product defect but rather that the gun manufacturers were knowingly selling guns they new were being resold through illegal channels. No one is arguing the guns were defective. The guns shoot metal out a high velocity just like advertised.
Suing Google or Yahoo for defamatory content posted by users is akin to suing PaperMill for someone printing a threatening letter on their paper. So as long as the paper does what is it is advertised to do, which is to hold pencil or ink markings for reasonable amount of time then PaperMill isn't liable for what markings people choose to place on their product.
What is at issue here is many people mistakenly believe the internet is content publishing mechanism when in fact is a simply a communications platform. Each person who posts content on the web is the 'publisher', the internet is a communications channel used to distribute the publisher's content. We don't expect the phone companies to screen every call for illegal or defamatory content nor would we tolerate the invasion of privacy if the phone companies attempted to do so. Therefore, we should not expect search engines, web sites, etc to police content. -
On the post: Venture Capitalist Explains How Patents Can Be A Tax On Innovation
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2009 @ 05:47amFurther Patent Reform
"if the patent holder is not developing a product based on the patent, then (a) the courts cannot issue any kind of injunction to stop the production of the product by others"
I would take this a step further. One of the greatest mistakes I think the PTO made was to no longer require working models of 'inventions'. I'll bet my next paycheck many of the software patents would fail simply because the 'inventor' doesn't have a clue how to write the code to execute their 'unique, non-obvious idea'. The same could be said for many of the business process 'inventions' as well. Make inventory demonstrate their unique invention as part of the patent process. That would slow down the general trend to patent everything then let the courts sort it out and it would refocus everyone on patenting real inventions, not simply descriptions of an idea for an invention. -
On the post: WSJ Editor Claims Google Devalues Everything
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2009 @ 11:53amROBOT.TXT
If WSJ truly believes search engines devalue content then why not simply update their robots.txt file to exclude themselves from search engines? They could easily lock up all their content behind a pay wall too.
What WSJ is really saying is they are having a hard time COMPETING now that the economics have changed. -
On the post: Rep. Conyers, Once Again, Trying To Lock Up Federally Funded Research
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 12 Feb, 2009 @ 01:08pmRe:
Now that I think about this more this idea makes a lot of sense. You could easily index articles, include links to related research, invite peer reviews from multiple disciplines, engage in professional discourse, foster collaboration, lobby for public and private funding, foster commercial interest, etc.
Hmmmm......... -
On the post: EU Regulators Can't Resist: Go After Microsoft For Antitrust Yet Again
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2009 @ 11:24amQuit making a browser
M$ should simply stop making IE and simply endorse/support an open source browser. Radical? You bet but it makes a lot of sense. 1. It relieves M$ from much of the antitrust issues with Windows. 2. Allows M$ to be viewed as a 'good guy' again 3. Reinforces the stance M$ supports open source efforts 4. Enables M$ to counter Google's growing influence in browser development (Google is the main financier of FireFox) 5. Enables M$ to leverage open source developers to help drive traffic to their internet properties 6. M$ can redirect resources to other areas that will directly drive profit greater profit growth in the future: search, cloud computing, etc M$ has to get over this idea they need to strive to be the #1 player in every facet of the internet.
-
On the post: Belgian Politician Caught Drunk In NYC Bar; Blames Bloggers
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 02 Dec, 2008 @ 06:19amA Disturbing Trend
Nearly every politician from a democratically elected government champions the ideal of freedom of speech and press, at least until it adversely impacts his or her political fortunes. The reality is governmental support of freedom of speech and press was conceived at time when the media gate keepers were few and distribution channels limited and regulated. Traditional media filtered out the mundane indiscretions of our politicians as not newsworthy and, in turn, received a fair amount of quid pro quo from them.
The internet changed the status quo by bypassing the gatekeeper's 'newsworthy' filters and exposing politicians (and traditional media itself) to ever increasing scrutiny. Gone are the days when an elected official can duck a report in the morning news about public drunkenness in exchange for an exclusive interview with a beat reporter; and with that there's an ever decreasing enthusiasm for truly free speech and press.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/13/mccain-war-on-blogs/
http://it.newinstance.it/2008/11/14/italian-politicians-against-bloggers-again/
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/northwest/story/547434.html
http://news.cnet.com/The-coming-crackdown-on-blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html
http://thinendofthewedge.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/eu-proposes-regulation-of-blogging/ -
On the post: Hollywood's DVD Cash Cow Starting To Falter
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2008 @ 01:57pmI think another major factor is increased availability of on-demand movies, downloading and streaming. I've noticed more and more people moving to other distribution channels simply because it is more convenient. When you consider the price of a blu-ray DVD it is simply cheaper to buy/rent a digital copy or stream the movie on-line.
-
On the post: Movie Studios Sue Australian ISP For Not Waving Magic Wand And Defeating Piracy
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2008 @ 01:42pmHe has a very good point
He has a very valid point. If a law is broken it is up to law enforcement to deal with it, not a private enterprise. If I'm caught counterfeiting money on a copier should you call Xerox or the cops?
-
On the post: Yes, Actually, Music Can Be Free
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2008 @ 01:20pmRe: free music might work, but give it time
You are missing an important point. Yes, a programmer certainly wouldn't like to give away software to sell T-Shirts because he isn't in the merchandising business. But he might give away software to sell services/support/expertise on the software. Don't think that would work? That's essentially Red Hat's model. Linux is open source but Red Hat makes money selling service and support for it.
No one is claiming there's no cost to producing music or writing software. But that first iteration should be thought of as an investment. You leverage that initial investment in an infinite good to sell other products that remain scarce, whether it is support for the software, tickets to a concert, etc.
And keep in mind, just because every subsequent copy has a cost of nearly zero that doesn't automatically mean no one will ever pay for a copy. There's value in convenience and ease of access. -
On the post: Can A Moron In A Hurry Tell The Difference Between A Nude Model And A Car?
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 08 Oct, 2008 @ 01:03pmMore for Toyota to Sue
Clearly Toyota isn't suing nearly enough 'infringers'
http://alexussteakhouse.com/
http://web.mac.com/alexus309/AlexusSheppard/Welcome.html
http://alexus.biz/
http://www.alexusconsulting.com/ -
On the post: Video Game Developer Talks To Pirates: Realizes He Can Compete With Free
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2008 @ 11:52amRemember Wolfenstien?
Do any of you remember Wolfenstien? The guy who wrote that gave away a free version. The free version was fully functional and it came with 10 dungeons. If you sent him ten bucks he would send you an additional 20 levels. He set a low price point, created an incentive to buy, and used 'free' to promote his product. He made a bundle even though plenty of people never sent in a dime.
Free works if you use leverage it correctly. -
On the post: Totally Misunderstanding Movie Downloading In France
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2008 @ 12:02pmRe: Re: Rational solution......
Nearly every song ever recorded is available somewhere for 'free' and yet Apple has no trouble getting millions to buy songs at $.99 a pop. Why? Convenience, ease of use, assurance of quality, positive buying experience, participative community, free content, etc. People aren't paying for the song so much as the entire service which adds value to the content.
Make your distribution mechanism a beneficial and positive experience and people will flock to you with open wallets. -
On the post: Research Journals Make It As Difficult As Possible To Openly Publish Gov't Funded Research
Kevin Stapp ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2008 @ 02:43pmDoes a researcher 'own'
Perhaps I am just naive about publicly funded research but doesn't the funding authority typically retain the rights to all research/results from projects they fund? If so, I would think the researcher doesn't really have the right to assign copyright to another party without permission of the funding authority. Publishers may attempt to assert copyright on public research they publish but I have to believe that position could readily be challenged in court.
I may be out in left field here but I'm pretty sure I saw a movie from the 40's or 50's where a guy leaned over to appear to defy gravity (Danny Kaye?) using anchor shoes. I'm also pretty sure I've seen stage magic acts that used similar techniques. Seems like prior art to me.