|
|
About Derek Kerton
In the Telecom industry.
Own a consulting firm since 2001.
http://www.kertongroup.com
Chairman of the Telecom Council of Silicon Valley
http://www.telecomcouncil.com
Various Advisory Boards
12 years of alliances, biz dev, strategy, and product management across software, infrastructure, applications ,and content for consumer and enterprise users.
Clients include: SK Telecom, British Telecom, NTT DoCoMo, Sun Microsystems Javasoft, Ameritech (now SBC), Disney, Thin Multimedia, WiderThan, Infoseek, Bouygues Telecom, Leapfrog, Digital Fountain, Global UMTS TDD Alliance, IPWireless, Rezn8, DRMlabs, Mavenir Systems, Aegis Mobility, OnAir, Synapse Group, NextG Networks, Broadcom, University of Waterloo, Fireside Financial, Jackson Walker LLP, and WiFinder.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/derek@kerton.com |
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: (as Derek Kerton)
Better tell this to the people at the Golf channel and E!...already owned by Comcast.
Bloggers Disclosure Requirements (as Derek Kerton)
I love how our government wants to require bloggers who get a free trinket to fully disclose that $60 gift when they write about the product or company, but somehow our high-circulation, "integrity-drive" major publications neglect some fairly obvious conflict of interest. Did those article authors ever earn something more than a hundred bucks or so from the newspaper industry?
"the Washington Post and the WSJ conveniently left out the fact that these two lawyers regularly represent newspapers and other media and entertainment firms -- even as that seems rather relevant (what happened to those FTC disclosure laws?)."
Re: (as Derek Kerton)
Amen that. I liked this turn of phrase:
"We can't see that the shoulders we stand on are so broad that we confuse them with the ground."
Our Anon Coward has two main problems:
1) he doesn't understand your point, or at least doesn't agree
2) he is sooo arrogant as to suppose that he is the arbiter of what is, and what isn't art. I mean, I have an opinion on the matter, but I also understand that no single person could ever be the judge of something so subjective.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfashionably Late (as Derek Kerton)
Whoa....whoa, slow down, there, BoJangles. I wrote basically the same tune in my 1996 Mock Opera, "Jerplatnik Futza Odpingo". The third line in the opening arpeggio was:
"Hizzerdly clunk, luppering jert tongles ews"
So, as you can see, only two letters different then your nonsense. Mine was art, since I did it first. But your's was worthless nonsense. Even if you came up with it yourself, you are NOT creative, since I wrote it earlier.
(Others may find it strange that something that had nothing to do with you, unbeknownst to you, could have the effect of changing you from an artist to a non artist, ex post facto. But I'm sure you, with your gift for logic and complete comprehension of what is art, can understand.)
BTW, it was a hell of a show. We performed at our block party, got whacked-out on Jolt cola, and busted all the guitars over the amps in the closing sonata. We artists can be like that! In fact, I'm reading your posts stoned! Why? Because you are more trippy than the film, The Wall.
I guess what I'm getting at is: my lawyers will be in touch.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Derek Kerton)
Wow, weak story. Possible refutations:
1) Why didn't he develop it when first conceived? Perhaps because the market wasn't ready, the bill of materials was too high at that earlier date. There could be dozens of reasons. And of course, they would apply to anyone else with a similar idea during that period.
2) How do you know how many people of 4+ Billion humans had conceived of putting a game of some sort on a TV screen? Do the odd support that between 1950 - 1965, that idea occurred to 1 person?
I fully invented rollerblades years before the first skates ever hit the market. I had the in-line idea, and the multiple donut wheel idea, all attached to a skate boot. No BS. You see, I had to walk to school, and as a hockey player I noted how much faster I could skate then walk, and how easy it was to glide on skates. I wanted to go to school the way I went across the rink. Problem was, I was 12, not so ambitious, and the idea was just in my head. To me, that's just one example of how ideas are a dime a dozen.
Your console guy through the 1950s was about as useful to society as my rollerblade plan. Until he actually did something, so what.
Re: To Dr. Strange (as Derek Kerton)
It seems that what you fail to understand is that, below the laws and precedents; below the legalese; below the needed precision that lawyers must bring to words and meanings, the issue of Intellectual Property policy is an economics issue. An economist may or may not be able to legally debate Dr. Strange, but as for this one, I wouldn't even try.
What you and the good Dr. have forgotten is that the lawyers, in turn, are ill-trained and unqualified to argue and determine the best economic policy for IP. And that is the debate we most often have here at Techdirt. Mike dabbles in the legal, but is based in the economics.
But the economics are the foundation. They are more important. The laws should follow the economics.
When the IP system seems to be failing the economic goals, creating the wrong incentives, creating barriers, and holding back doers, the economists should get frustrated. Meanwhile, the lawyers just chug merrily along, since the system is working - so long as one defines 'working' as "creating rules, and following the set of rules".
Thats when you tell the economists "You're not qualified to be frustrated." not understanding the irony of the statement.
Re: Re: Re: (as Derek Kerton)
"In the colloquial sense, some people's common sense tells them that copyright infringement is stealing, or a form of stealing. Others believe the opposite. Legally, however, there's no dispute: copyright infringement is not stealing, nor is it a form of stealing. If anyone here tries to assert that it is, whether they mean it colloquially or not, they are immediately lambasted for not using the legal definition."
As they should be. Those doing the lambasting need to exert above-normal enthusiasm to counteract a well-funded, insidious, highly-organized, misinformation campaign that seeks to equate infringement and theft. The campaign is spending money to distort the common "common sense".
It's not that the people here are anal about definitions, it's just that many would prefer an honest debate.
"Obviousness", as you illustrated with your swinging rope analogy, is a much more subjective topic. And there is no reason the average person should feel like they have to study law to discuss "what is obvious".
Yes, they would need to adhere to legal definitions if they were in court debating it, but on this blog the definition of "obvious" can be just what Merriam Webster says. The spirit of the law is probably better represented by the English definition, not the legal version that has changed over years of pro-IP influence and precedent.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Derek Kerton)
Regarding the rope swinging experiment:
How would you refute somebody like me, who agrees that the bumping of the rope may have set off the inspiration to swing them together, but STILL considers each person to have come up with the idea themself. You see, there are really NO (zero, none) ideas that anybody actually comes up with completely independently. What a farcical notion that even is! How could we invent an idea completely independently when we spend our baby years looking and learning, our toddler years mimicking, our pre-school years learning from Ernie and Bert, 13 years in school getting trained on basics, college, post-grad, mentors, etc. We copy our heroes in sport, artists dance, pro skateboarders shred. We learn. All of our knowledge and moves are extrapolated from what we have seen.
Unless a human was somehow raised by wolves (say Tarzan, perhaps), it is utterly impossible to independently invent something. And even he can't claim to have invented swinging on ropes. He just aped the apes.
So along comes you with your swinging rope story, to point out what many of us find blindingly obvious: with the right spark, the right catalyst, many people invent simultaneously. And those invention, inspiration, and ideas come from many sources combined together. They become obvious suddenly, based on the times. It's not some independent flash of brilliance. And if it was unique invention, the ripeness of the times would have produced other fruit in short order. Overall, this should reduce our desire to over-compensate the "first to file", but strengthen our resolve to educate, share information, and perform publicly-funded critical research.
Further, on your request for someone to do the due diligence in order to labor the point, I answer no. Just because the legal system has muddied the waters, moved the legal definition of "obvious" from the English definition does not mean that we need to talk about it on your terms. We are talking about idealist concepts. We know bloody well that, if sued, we'll have to talk about it in your language, but here on this site, we like to thing above the legalese and wonder what the economy could be like if the incentive structure were different.
Saying to me "This is how the rules are, so this is how you need to argue it." is irrelevant when what I'm saying is, "What are the outcomes we want, and what would be the best way for us to design a new set of rules?"
Re: Re: Re: *Applause* (as Derek Kerton)
Gents and anonymice:
Have a look at the tags on these articles. Just left of the article under "Filed Under:"
Re: Re: Re: STFU (as Derek Kerton)
If your 1998 quote is correct, then you got me. I retract my argument (b) above. I still think you used cool vocab, and that it made little sense, but I was wrong. The heirs are not hypocrites, and have been consistently motivated by money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution is, unfortunately for Mr. Masnick, to use more cameras. . . (as Derek Kerton)
Yeah. You're right.
I guess red-light running is now in the "easy to catch" camp, and thus the current debate.
Re: Re: (as Derek Kerton)
Dom,
I think what you're saying is true, many true artists are compelled to create. However, I don't think society gives a @#$ about the motivations of the people making the 'art'. Actually, let's just call it 'content', since that removes the subjective value judgement of whether it's 'artistic'.
The public doesn't care about the motivations of the content creators. It may be a passionate starving artist that produces a great film, or a money-hungry studio pumping out a sequel just because they ran the numbers. Either way, the audience enjoyed Blair Witch AND Sita Sings The Blues. True value was created for society regardless of the motivation.
So I agree with everyone's point here (and yours) that many talented "true" artists are motivated by passion, not money. I agree that lots of content would be made even if copyright didn't exist - even if no money were to be made from content. We would still have content.
Just less.
Because it's also true that the money-seekers also produce content, and often enough, it is also "good", in that society enjoys the results. It makes sense that the money-seekers would produce some good content, since their goal is to produce a product that has market demand.
My point: Whether a content creator's motivation is purely passion, or purely financial, or a mix of both, it doesn't matter: the creation of their content is good for society.
When an anti-copyrightist says: "There would be plenty of content just created because of passion", I disagree. My definition of plenty includes commercially-motivated production.
When a copyright-maximalist says: "There would be no content without copyright." We all know that to be ridiculously false.
That's why Techdirt tries to explain that BOTH types of producers can succeed in the market without the need for artificial scarcity. Both can do what they want, and seek the compensation they desire, but the onus is on them to deploy a business model that gets them there.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Red light runners should be penalized harshly (as Derek Kerton)
"If you see the light turn yellow from half a mile away, you're not going to make it"
This is true, but how is that affected by KEEPING the light yellow longer? You correctly noted that the important signal to try to slow down is the CHANGE from green->yellow, not the later change from yellow->red.
"However, a long yellow does mean that it will be possible to stop before the red"
What the light does or does not do is completely irrelevant to whether a driver can stop. Laws of physics govern stopping, laws of towns govern the lights.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Red light runners should be penalized harshly (as Derek Kerton)
A decent reply argument, but it doesn't stick, since the common meaning of a yellow is "stop if safely possible, otherwise proceed with caution". The length of the yellow has NO impact on whether it is safe to stop at the point in time when the light changes from green to yellow.
That remains a factor of speed of car, traction, and driver's reflexes.
Said differently: the point of no return does not move depending on length of yellow light. It is mostly subject to the laws of physics, and not the whim of traffic engineers. The yellow, thus, only needs to be long enough to safely clear the intersection of cars at or near the point of no return traveling at or about the speed limit.
"What is *does* do, is notifies drivers earlier, before they reach that point."
Notification occurs when the light changes to yellow - not when yellow changes to red. How can a longer yellow change the notification time of green->yellow?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Red light runners should be penalized harshly (as Derek Kerton)
Nope. Definitely "dangling preposition". It's a common grammar area that's basically accepted now, as google can show. You'd have to be anal about language to care. Guilty.
Of course the problem with being a grammar nazi is one invariably becomes also a hypocrite, because there's no way that everything I write is perfect!
I did not post just for the grammar point, but for the logic fail on the long yellow light.
Re: Re: Deniable (as Derek Kerton)
No. Deniable is right. It doesn't go viral when there is no recording to put on YouTube. Multiple witnesses be damned.
Witness testimonials of a gaffe or a dumb statement are simply not sensational, there is no schadenfreude, and it doesn't spread as widely.
Re: Re: The solution is, unfortunately for Mr. Masnick, to use more cameras. . . (as Derek Kerton)
Right.
I'm with you. But my motivation is partly this:
I break VERY few laws. I understand that we all break laws without even knowing it, but by and large, I'm VERY law abiding. While driving, I break extremely few laws. I signal EVERY single lane change. I pull into the closest lane when executing a turn. I drive on the right lane except to pass. Etc. Etc.
But I do break one law. Repeatedly, consistently. I do speed.
Why is it that most of the law enforcement we see is addressed to my indiscretion of choice? Why is every other driving error given a hall pass? Not just permitted by police driving nearby, but committed by police as much as anyone. When was the last time a cop write a "no turn signal" ticket, or a "merging onto the highway at 35mph" ticket? How about "no shoulder check" lane changes? Are those not dangerous? All kinds of crappy driving go ENTIRELY unpunished - and some of these are the actual causes of accidents, while speeding can increase the energy of the impact caused by some other infraction.
And speeding, though maligned, actually has two side benefits: it saves time for the speeder, and actually for everyone else. Speeding means we get to destinations faster, and thus get off the roads quicker. Small impact, I agree, but a net positive. Time IS very valuable...which is why so many people speed. Meanwhile, the other infractions committed on the road have NO benefits at all. But they are ignored by police.
Law enforcement, unequally applied, does not offer justice. And after years of me arguing this beef, technology has enabled automated traffic law enforcement. Do they install "turn signal cameras" or "slow merge cameras" or "sitting in the passing lane" cameras? Nope...speed cameras. WTF is with this boner everyone has for speeders? Is that the only cause of traffic incidents?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Red light runners should be penalized harshly (as Derek Kerton)
"Long yellow = you can almost always stop safely, even if speeding." -you said this in an earlier comment. That's logically incorrect. A long yellow affects one's ability to cross safely, not stop safely.
This applies to the critical cars that are at or about the "point of no return" as the light changes from green to yellow. Cars further away from the intersection don't benefit from a longer yellow either in crossing or stopping, since they can be expected to easily stop safely upon seeing the yellow. Longer yellows affect nobody's ability to stop. Only their ability to safely cross.
You should have written:
"...given a very long yellow time WITHIN WHICH the driver should have been able to CROSS."
Since I'm fixing it for you anyway, I also went grammar nazi. You shouldn't dangle your prepositions. As Churchill said, "That is something up with which I will not put."
Re: Re: Re: Red light runners should be penalized harshly (as Derek Kerton)
"Long yellow = you can almost always stop safely, even if speeding."
What? Incorrect. The length of yellow is totally unrelated to the driver's ability to stop at the intersection after observing the light change from green to yellow. The ability to stop is related to distance from the intersection, vehicle speed, traction & brakes, and driver reflexes.
Au Contraire: a long yellow = you can almost always cross safely, even if going slowly.
Re: Correcting Myself (as Derek Kerton)
And don't forget, although the message for now is "we can't offer fresh release movies until there is a flag" the reality will be different. Content that today is not flagged will end up flagged too, like sports games, prime time shows, HBO (high budget) series like Sopranos, etc.
This is a total camel nose in the tent door.