Something like "hey guys, so I have this patent, and I really don't want to use it to sue anyone, but I have these legal bills and no money. Now, if I lose, it could hurt you too, so why not help me out, I'll license it to you at a very reasonable rate, and we can keep the lawyers out of it.
Better idea; short it now, then buy in big again when the IRS criminal investigation division starts looking at them.
Also, Prenda has ongoing cases in other areas that are going to get a lot more scrutiny because of this ruling.
He just doesn't go after people who share the digital version because he uses the digital version as a promotional tool to advertise the print version, as well as promote the Cory Doctorow brand, among other things.
By taking down these files, they are censoring his advertising which can directly effect his book sales, and hurt his brand.
And yes, lots of people will buy the print version of something that they can get in an electronic version for free. Scott Sigler is another great example of this working.
I heard an interesting point about fair use the other day, which is that a lot of things are fair use, but that being fair use doesn't mean you won't get sued. Fair use just means that if you get sued, you have a legitimate leg to stand on in court so you hopefully wont lose everything.
Or New York City.
If I ever figure out I'm in a disaster movie, I'm getting as far away from NY as possible. It always gets creamed.
For the west coast, it's usually LA... No one ever invades Seattle. Maybe that's a good place to head to.
At least in the US, you see a medicine commercial, and at the end they go over the possible side effects. "If you take this pill for your low back pain you could have swelling of the hand, dry mouth, and an oozing rash. In some rare cases people grew extra limbs, then died."
Is this a different type of disclosure?
I guess it could be the actual numbers of how many people actually grew a 3rd arm and then were strangled when it had a mind of it's own.
Or, at least how bad the rash oozed.
To be a little more accurate, this is local level government, not state level. That being said, there is a really good reason why we have multiple levels of government. Federal level can step in and make changes across the board, hopefully with the best interests on the majority of citizens in mind, like the FCC in this story.
State level can step in if the federal government goes a little to far in it's reactions.
You see this a bit with states legalizing pot, despite the DEA's wishes.
I'm not for anyone taking drugs and ruining the lives of others (self destruct if you want, but think of your family before you do) but it's pretty clear from the over full prisons and no slow down in the flood of illegal drugs that the current method isn't working; maybe we should try a different plan. For science.
This is better than a la cart channels. This trend will grow, and it will eat the cable companies from within, because all the sudden they will have to face a level of competition that they haven't had to deal with since they got their regional monopolies.
It will be interesting to see what their response is to this threat.
Disrupters will come along, such as Google fiber in KS, Muni broadband, etc, and at some point there will be a subtle shift, like is happening with traditional land lines to cell phones/voip.
I would be really interested to hear what their definition of what a Zero-TV home is.
From the sounds of it, it's not just a home that doesn't have cable/sat, but also doesn't have over the air, which makes a lot more sense given that 5% number.
The number that use both internet and over the air instead of cable is quite a bit higher if I remember correctly.
Nielson announced a good month or more ago that they were going to start counting internet tv services in their numbers such as Netflix, YouTube and Hulu, and some of the bigger networks like ABC are responding to the announcement that they are going to be putting their shows online day of instead of after a week wait because of it.
For lots of great cord cutting news check out Frame Rate on the TWIT network: http://twit.tv/show/frame-rate
It's one of my favorite weekly video netcasts.
Why do they need to lock the phones in the first place? If I buy it unsubsidized I don't need a contract and can request to have it unlocked from the start.
If I buy it subsidized I have to sign a contract saying that I'll stick with them for a couple years, with penalties if I jump carriers early.
Locking the phones is a waste of resources at best and anti competitive at worst.
The only good thing I can say about it is that if I go through the hassle of getting it unlocked after the contract is up, I can resell it for more than the guy that didn't get it unlocked, and probably sell it faster too due to more demand for phones that let you do what you want.
What phones can you get that come unlocked? I know the Nexus phones do, which work on TMobile, and maybe AT&T... but if you live in an area where those networks aren't that great, or if you have to go with one of the other carriers for other reasons (company will only pay for your plan if you are on Verizon, etc) then no pre-unlocked phone for you!
Where I really have a problem with this law is the fact that it is really unnecessary. They say that locking the phone is is important so that you stay with them long enough to earn back the money they use to subsidize the phone, but that's silly because before they will subsidize the phone I have to sign a contract saying that I will stay with them for 2 years, with heavy penalties if I jump carriers early. After the contract is up I can request that the phone be unlocked, and most of the time they will unlock it.
Also, there is more than 1 type of lock.
I got a Droid DNA, which has a locked boot loader, but is carrier unlocked out of the box. Meaning, if I want to travel internationally or put another carriers sim in I can no problem, but if I want to mod it I have to unlock it. And to be honest, I don't know if this law covers locked boot loaders or just locked carriers.
Thankfully, I got it and unlocked the boot loader just before the deadline, so either way I'm legal, but it's still kind of confusing.
I think one reason that those that pirate music buy more music is because they actually care about music.
I do not pirate music. I think the one time I downloaded a CD was when I loaned a CD to a friend in college before I had backed it up to the computer, and somewhere in the exchange it got cracked. I couldn't say it was my friends fault, so I couldn't make him buy me a new one, and I didn't have the money to buy it again, so I found a copy online and kept the cracked CD as proof that I owned it.
I can't actually remember the last time I bought a CD either, but that's because I discovered audiobooks at the library and very very rarely listen to music any more. The rare occasions when I do listen to music either the radio or online streaming work great.
That's probably what's happening in France. For most people the amount of music you can get either over the air or legally online is more than enough to satisfy.