Realtors seem to be largely deluded as to the service they actually provide. While I can see the utility in engaging one if you are moving to a new city where you are unfamiliar with the various neighborhoods, or entrusting one with wrapping up all the details if you're new to home buying (inspections, etc.), in large part they no longer provide any useful service.
Even more mystifying, they market themselves by proudly listing how many houses they flip how quickly, where higher numbers should be a warning that they intend to get you to sell your house for as little as possible and that they intend to spend as little time as possible helping you do so.
I am mildly surprised their industry has not been more disrupted already, especially in light of the current downturn in the profitability of home sales.
No. The combined claims of the patent are for it to bring up a contextual menu with more than one choice when clicking on a number. Simply bringing up the dialer would not violate the patent in question.
Still obvious and unworthy of patent protection, though.
To turn your own analogy back on you, you are saying loaning your car to someone should be illegal, since if Joe borrows Sally's car to act as a getaway driver during bank robberies, and she borrows his for the same reason, they are magically absolved of responsibility for this.
And yet no one anywhere is suggesting loaning of cars should be illegal.
"Can you sue a publisher for DRMing your rights away?"
Not necessary. You have your lobbyists write a new law criminalizing that behavior, have congress pass the bill, and then you sit back while the government prosecutes the publisher.
This is somewhat analogous to ripping your bought and owned DVD/BD for digital device use. With the difference that you can retain full "quality" with text a little easier.
The discussions below about providing a service to others that does this will run into the same thing as DVD ripping services would, though. Industry will probably tolerate individuals doing this on their own behalf, if only because of logistical problems inherent in preventing it, but no way will they allow anyone to profit from "format" shifting of "their" content as a service.
All the "think of the children" zero tolerance for anyone classified as any sort of sex offender should give anyone pause before agreeing to any plea deals for things like public urination or nudity now though.
In fact, it probably gives lawyers defending minor infractions like that some decent ammunition for raising the bar for such a conviction.
I am one of the holdouts (the first part). Never asked anyone to use theirs though.
On the other hand, I'd hate to see devices banned on flights. MOre people would try and sleep on the 10 hour flight I frequently take, and many of them seem to snore.
I don't know, the DOJ seems intent to actually do something, judging by their language. Their bold approach to the ATT-Tmo merger makes me hopeful their bark has some bite this time too.
Apple isn't helping their case by their posturing either. So my bet is on medium level smackdown.
The school is still responsible for the child's welfare during those breaks however.
That said, I do agre with you to a point, to wit:
"But how do schools enforce various zero-tolerance policies for touching/bullying and still allow kids to be kids?"
They should not be enforcing zero tolerance anything. School boards need to stop abdicating their responsibility for their own and the schools staffs' actions by using zero tolerance, and return to having to use their own judgement to decide when and how severely these actions require intervention and/or punishment.
This whole trend of "suspend anyone for any infraction" so that no one can blame the school is gutless. And parents are partly to blame. If teachers and administrators had allies amongst the parents against the types who caused this reaction, there might be a chance to reverse the trend.
My kid was not allowed to run on the playground in his elementary. Under threat of suspension for repeat offenses. Seriously.
Like I said above, I think it could probably be gotten down to 6 weeks for a bare bones release. I can guarantee that NATO (not that one, North American Theater Owners) would do everything they could to kill such a move, though. As Mike often notes, they have no confidence in their own ability to offer a positive experience that can compete with home viewing.
Funny you all think I am defending them. I actually agree with Mike as to what should happen, I just think it would involve compromises the studio won't make.
I work for a large entertainment company, although not in their movie studio division. And I am firmly in the "reduce copyright back to 14 years" camp, as well as sharing most other positions on IP Techdirt espouses.
But I know lot of people in the production side of film, and know something about all the bandying about for release dates. Movies are like any other short term investment. The companies that make them want to get the return on their (sometimes borrowed) money as soon as possible. Which means they target the shortest production period they can get the actual movie makers to agree to, and the best (based on many factors but largely earliest) release date date they can lay a claim to before some other film does.
And no, mastering the movie for disk isn't a huge effort, but it does take several weeks, between mastering and encoding the video and audio, getting those masters out to a disk replication plant, the new step (studio's fault for insisting on their insane DRM) of making sure the produced disks work problem free in existing models of blu-ray players, then going to a full production run. Most decent directors also want to review this result and bless it as well.
And none of that can happen until the movie is complete, which, as I said, is very often not until a couple of weeks (or even days) before its premiere, during which time they are also dealing with making prints for the mostly still film based theater industry.
As for selling disks completely devoid of extras, they could, but it would require a lower price IMO, and would probably dilute some of the demand for the more profitable feature filled version down the road. Between that, and complicating their release date selection process or delaying premiere dates, I just don't see it happening in a risk averse industry like this.
The one issue I see - movies are often barely completed in time for their release, with a lot of last minute post production work. Mastering the DVD/blu-ray as well as assembling and producing even the barebones "extras" people would expect from a DVD release (director and cast commentary audio track) cannot be done in that time frame in most cases. Especially when the major players often need to immediately go on a promotion tour for the film's theatrical run.
I think 6-8 weeks is probably the shortest realistic window to do something like this and put out a product people won't be offended by, quality-wise.
I haven't read all the stories and posts on Techdirt lately, but I am surprised to not see more discussion of the implications of your first sentence.
And not specifically in terms of the content industry, but rather the USGov itself probably being very keen on having a means of quickly killing sites it doesn't like. Wikileaks comes to mind.
Chuck D's lawyers need to find someone who has "sold" one of his itunes purchased tracks to another user, put him on the stand, and force UMG's counsel to declare the transaction acceptable or not. Either way they lose.
Agree with your points, but I'd also like to know their requested damages.
If they are looking for thousands of dollars or more, I'd be with Mike, avoid their product. But if they are pursuing a reasonable course with their suit (I know, pretty unlikely), I'd probably be more inclined to shake my head at their windmill tilting, but not lump them in with the evil of most such suits.
Indded. Pretty sure industry will be most moved by this part of the study:
The research also revealed that copyright owners don't necessarily benefit from a lower amount of piracy. "Decreased piracy doesn't guarantee increased profits," Purohit said. "In fact, our analysis demonstrates that under some conditions, one can observe lower levels of piracy and lower profits."
Value of realtors
Realtors seem to be largely deluded as to the service they actually provide. While I can see the utility in engaging one if you are moving to a new city where you are unfamiliar with the various neighborhoods, or entrusting one with wrapping up all the details if you're new to home buying (inspections, etc.), in large part they no longer provide any useful service.
Even more mystifying, they market themselves by proudly listing how many houses they flip how quickly, where higher numbers should be a warning that they intend to get you to sell your house for as little as possible and that they intend to spend as little time as possible helping you do so.
I am mildly surprised their industry has not been more disrupted already, especially in light of the current downturn in the profitability of home sales.
Re: Re:
No. The combined claims of the patent are for it to bring up a contextual menu with more than one choice when clicking on a number. Simply bringing up the dialer would not violate the patent in question.
Still obvious and unworthy of patent protection, though.
Re: Re: Devils Advocate
To turn your own analogy back on you, you are saying loaning your car to someone should be illegal, since if Joe borrows Sally's car to act as a getaway driver during bank robberies, and she borrows his for the same reason, they are magically absolved of responsibility for this.
And yet no one anywhere is suggesting loaning of cars should be illegal.
Re:
"Can you sue a publisher for DRMing your rights away?"
Not necessary. You have your lobbyists write a new law criminalizing that behavior, have congress pass the bill, and then you sit back while the government prosecutes the publisher.
Much simpler and more effective.
Re:
The analog hole!
This is somewhat analogous to ripping your bought and owned DVD/BD for digital device use. With the difference that you can retain full "quality" with text a little easier.
The discussions below about providing a service to others that does this will run into the same thing as DVD ripping services would, though. Industry will probably tolerate individuals doing this on their own behalf, if only because of logistical problems inherent in preventing it, but no way will they allow anyone to profit from "format" shifting of "their" content as a service.
Re: Anytime a politician plays the "For the Chillllllllldrrrrrennnn" card
Ah the questino, the quantum particle of inquisitiveness.
Re:
Not really "now". That has been true for decades.
All the "think of the children" zero tolerance for anyone classified as any sort of sex offender should give anyone pause before agreeing to any plea deals for things like public urination or nudity now though.
In fact, it probably gives lawyers defending minor infractions like that some decent ammunition for raising the bar for such a conviction.
Re: I know one!
I am one of the holdouts (the first part). Never asked anyone to use theirs though.
On the other hand, I'd hate to see devices banned on flights. MOre people would try and sleep on the 10 hour flight I frequently take, and many of them seem to snore.
Re:
I don't know, the DOJ seems intent to actually do something, judging by their language. Their bold approach to the ATT-Tmo merger makes me hopeful their bark has some bite this time too.
Apple isn't helping their case by their posturing either. So my bet is on medium level smackdown.
Re:
What did you type that comment on? Unless it's a slightly oder Nokia phone, it was made in a similar or worse sweatshop.
The article is about Apple and the publishers colluding on actions which are anti-competitive. Do you have anything relevant to say about that?
Re: Re: Re:
The school is still responsible for the child's welfare during those breaks however.
That said, I do agre with you to a point, to wit:
"But how do schools enforce various zero-tolerance policies for touching/bullying and still allow kids to be kids?"
They should not be enforcing zero tolerance anything. School boards need to stop abdicating their responsibility for their own and the schools staffs' actions by using zero tolerance, and return to having to use their own judgement to decide when and how severely these actions require intervention and/or punishment.
This whole trend of "suspend anyone for any infraction" so that no one can blame the school is gutless. And parents are partly to blame. If teachers and administrators had allies amongst the parents against the types who caused this reaction, there might be a chance to reverse the trend.
My kid was not allowed to run on the playground in his elementary. Under threat of suspension for repeat offenses. Seriously.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "you should be able to buy the DVD of the movie you just watched"
Initial releases usually have a cast and crew audio commentary. See my original comment).
Re: Re: Re: Re: "you should be able to buy the DVD of the movie you just watched"
Like I said above, I think it could probably be gotten down to 6 weeks for a bare bones release. I can guarantee that NATO (not that one, North American Theater Owners) would do everything they could to kill such a move, though. As Mike often notes, they have no confidence in their own ability to offer a positive experience that can compete with home viewing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "you should be able to buy the DVD of the movie you just watched"
Funny you all think I am defending them. I actually agree with Mike as to what should happen, I just think it would involve compromises the studio won't make.
I work for a large entertainment company, although not in their movie studio division. And I am firmly in the "reduce copyright back to 14 years" camp, as well as sharing most other positions on IP Techdirt espouses.
But I know lot of people in the production side of film, and know something about all the bandying about for release dates. Movies are like any other short term investment. The companies that make them want to get the return on their (sometimes borrowed) money as soon as possible. Which means they target the shortest production period they can get the actual movie makers to agree to, and the best (based on many factors but largely earliest) release date date they can lay a claim to before some other film does.
And no, mastering the movie for disk isn't a huge effort, but it does take several weeks, between mastering and encoding the video and audio, getting those masters out to a disk replication plant, the new step (studio's fault for insisting on their insane DRM) of making sure the produced disks work problem free in existing models of blu-ray players, then going to a full production run. Most decent directors also want to review this result and bless it as well.
And none of that can happen until the movie is complete, which, as I said, is very often not until a couple of weeks (or even days) before its premiere, during which time they are also dealing with making prints for the mostly still film based theater industry.
As for selling disks completely devoid of extras, they could, but it would require a lower price IMO, and would probably dilute some of the demand for the more profitable feature filled version down the road. Between that, and complicating their release date selection process or delaying premiere dates, I just don't see it happening in a risk averse industry like this.
Re: Re: "you should be able to buy the DVD of the movie you just watched"
The one issue I see - movies are often barely completed in time for their release, with a lot of last minute post production work. Mastering the DVD/blu-ray as well as assembling and producing even the barebones "extras" people would expect from a DVD release (director and cast commentary audio track) cannot be done in that time frame in most cases. Especially when the major players often need to immediately go on a promotion tour for the film's theatrical run.
I think 6-8 weeks is probably the shortest realistic window to do something like this and put out a product people won't be offended by, quality-wise.
Re:
I haven't read all the stories and posts on Techdirt lately, but I am surprised to not see more discussion of the implications of your first sentence.
And not specifically in terms of the content industry, but rather the USGov itself probably being very keen on having a means of quickly killing sites it doesn't like. Wikileaks comes to mind.
First sale
Chuck D's lawyers need to find someone who has "sold" one of his itunes purchased tracks to another user, put him on the stand, and force UMG's counsel to declare the transaction acceptable or not. Either way they lose.
Re: Individuals
Agree with your points, but I'd also like to know their requested damages.
If they are looking for thousands of dollars or more, I'd be with Mike, avoid their product. But if they are pursuing a reasonable course with their suit (I know, pretty unlikely), I'd probably be more inclined to shake my head at their windmill tilting, but not lump them in with the evil of most such suits.
Re:
Indded. Pretty sure industry will be most moved by this part of the study:
The research also revealed that copyright owners don't necessarily benefit from a lower amount of piracy. "Decreased piracy doesn't guarantee increased profits," Purohit said. "In fact, our analysis demonstrates that under some conditions, one can observe lower levels of piracy and lower profits."
(untitled comment)
Curious, has there been any response or comment whatsoever from any of the journals known for doing this?