David Muir's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the just-because-this-is-true,-doesn't-mean-that-is-true dept
The favorite posts we choose are undoubtedly influenced by our experience. So here's a quick rundown of my background: I'm Canadian. I went to school for Radio and Television Arts and briefly worked in print and radio journalism. I was involved in and managed software development at IBM for two decades. Now I'm a real estate agent. (Along the way, I spent ten years as an auxiliary police officer in Toronto.)
Real estate agent and ex-cop you say? Some of you have two reasons to stop reading right now! But I hope you continue on.
It is no shock that trademark and copyright law affected my first two media-related career choices. But it is a bit of a surprise to see the way it affects my current career. Facts are not subject to copyright. Real estate's Multiple Listing Service (MLS®) is essentially a database of facts and most real estate boards try to claim copyright over the entries. Lately the fight has been more focused on consumer privacy than copyright. But no matter what, gone are the days when a real estate agent's key contribution was "I know something you don't know." My success in this career hinges on the same points Mike's been saying: Connect with people (fans!), be human, and be awesome. The business models that will work in real estate, as in many other industries facing a disruption by the Internet, are based on adding value by being an enabler and not a gatekeeper.
I noticed a theme that influenced the rest of my favorites: Just because this is true... doesn't mean that is true. For all you students of philosophy, some of these are examples of logical fallacies, mostly non-sequiturs. Some are just plain overreaches.
As a general example: Just because copyright law exists doesn't mean it should always be enforced to the fullest extent. Nor does it mean that every business setback requires a new and tougher copyright law to compensate.
Just because you can sue or threaten to sue someone, doesn't mean it is always the right way to go. This week we've seen the UFC take on its own biggest fans and a magnanimous pair of actors smooth over the PR mess left by litigious lawyers.
Just because Louis CK found a formula for success doesn't mean it is the only answer -- or even the best answer. The naysayers who say things like "only a business model that makes money should be used" have not wrapped their heads around the idea that one-size does not fit all -- and how will you know what makes money until you try it? Plenty of non-intuitive ideas (like free-to-play MMOs) have proven to be big moneymakers. We are in a period of transition which means a lot of experimenting should be happening and must be encouraged.
Just because some job-seekers are desperate enough to give up their social networking login information doesn't mean that employers should ever ask for it. But it also doesn't mean that we immediately need a new law. If you don't care about your personal information and you want to work for a place that violates privacy so cavalierly: by all means, give 'er.
Just because innovation happens regardless, doesn't mean the current patent system isn't a huge hindrance. The cost of patents, even ones that are non-obvious but trivial, is that people waste effort solving the same problem over and over. There's also the very real issue of forcing proprietary (non-standard) products to market. Imagine if all the World-Wide Web and Internet standards had been patented instead of being developed via RFC.
And finally, in the article that saddened me the most and one that sickened me (do anti-favorites count?): just because some people are despicable does not mean the law should be twisted to punish them an extra amount. So in the first case, as sad as a suicide is, and as much as jerks and bullies make life hard for everyone, we have to be careful about pulling out a bigger stick than is necessary because of our emotional response to the tragedy. In the second case, we can't start putting people in jail for being fascinated by horrible things.
(untitled comment)
I'm excited about Google Glass. As of right now you should already be assuming that your whole life is recorded.
Placing surveillance capabilities back into the hands of the people is just another way to democratize information gathering and dissemination.
Still, putting a bit of "level" on the playing field doesn't mean that pervasive surveillance is not a big concern.
(untitled comment)
I notice one commenter is trying to be supportive. She says that to her "pornography is legalized prostitution". Wouldn't that make Duffy the pimp's thuggish enforcer?
Re:
You'd think the man would stop and parse his own statement, providing him with the ultimate Eureka! moment.
My imagination spins this out in a world where common sense prevails: "We, Hollywood, have to catch up and leverage this technology for our customers. What we learn from this catchup process should well-position us to take advantage of the NEXT technological evolution and actually beat the pirates to it."
Remember the guy who said recently that distribution of Academy award material should not be done digitally because they are all about "theatrical releases"? This is the kind of closed-end position that dooms Hollywood (or dooms the rest of us if the politicians continue to be nourished via Hollywood's teat).
Even their piracy is archaic
I find it bizarre that even the piracy that is supposedly driving Hollywood towards a realistic future is still firmly rooted in the past.
After all, burning physical copies for "speed and convenience" barely resembles most of today's fully digital online options.
(untitled comment)
It bothers me that a man can so succinctly describe his brief obsession with gore. I was especially disturbed by the fact that he gave up snacks while watching TV. This cannot stand.
The solution is of course to eliminate the mention of gore-related dietary choices from all media. I call for a ban on such frightening utterances!
Incivility
I don't know. I tend to think that, anonymous or not, if you're going to practice incivility, you can at some point expect an uncivil or even insane response.
If you drive around honking and giving the finger to people all the time and one day you are the victim of road rage -- it doesn't make the road-rager right, but you might want to rethink your behavior nonetheless.
Re: Re: Duh!
This is also when people start looking at piracy as the "cause" of their grief. Count the number of comments from people who blame those that pirate games -- not EA or any other purveyor of lame DRM schemes -- as the root of the problem.
Re:
Even with today's amazing technology advances, alleged threats are still unlinkable.
Re:
Allow me to expand on your point.
Both of things supposedly threatened here are probably not at all threatened. The statement is based on nothing but a gut feeling from someone who cannot see beyond what IS.
Give away and pray is NOT what judicious use of free availability, AKA promotion, in a business model is all about. REAL movies can be released in various ways.
<sarcasm> It devalues the Academy Awards to show them on television, which is such a pervasive and free medium. They should invite only Hollywood elite, and hold them in a big theater in secret somewhere. </sarcasm>
(untitled comment)
We can only imagine the horrific fallout if people suddenly had access to the BFG from Doom.
After all, the ghastly result of people going on mass killing sprees with easily-accessible chainsaws (also depicted in Doom), is already unspeakable. Clearly there is a direct causal link between the two. No need for a study.
Re: Re: Tautologies
Excellent! You are thinking like a prosecutor: "Hey! Look, we can charge him with BOTH auto theft and shoplifting... oh and vehicular misappropriation and highway robbery and non-pedestrian pilfering... maximum sentence is 300 years in prison but we can whittle it down to four years in a plea agreement. Look how lenient we're being. I tell ya: doing good feels good."
Tautologies
My apologies in advance for taking one small element out of this article and expanding on it. Yet perhaps it is the crux of the incorrect viewpoints and interpretations behind the outdated view of things.
STEALING = STEALING as you point out, is a tautology.
Let's play around with logic a little.
GRAND THEFT AUTO = STEALING is true.
SHOPLIFTING = STEALING is true.
Therefore GRAND THEFT AUTO = SHOPLIFTING. Uh wait a sec.
You would think that smart people would recognize that STEALING is not in fact always equal to STEALING and if you boil complex issues down to false tautologies, you are going to have unintended consequences that ruin people's lives.
Then of course you can get back to the point that COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT != STEALING or VIOLATING ACCEPTABLE USE POLICIES != STEALING to completely blow up their argument.
(By the way, Toronto's Globe and Mail has fallen so far from its peak as a widely respected source of news and opinion that I am hardly surprised at their clueless stance on this issue.)
Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Please re-read the comment. My interpretation of it was that the commenter was trying to get us to use examples of speech that we really disagree with... that we personally would love to censor... but in making the argument against censorship that we STILL wouldn't censor.
You introduced an ad hominem criticism of something that I think AGREES with your viewpoint.
Misinterpretation and misunderstandings are MAIN reasons I disagree with censorship. Sometimes (as with the famous Swift piece "A Modest Proposal") horrendous ideas are actually presented as an argument AGAINST those very ideas. Allowing people to discuss and figure out the sarcasm or metaphor or parody is all part of communicating and it simply can't happen if part of the communication is censored.
(Of course, yes, exposing idiots is another reason we don't want censorship.)
(untitled comment)
Does anyone know if the original movie version also spelled the state Illonois?
Typo or not, the package is pretty awesome indeed.
Real Patent Examiner?
Samica L. Norman is an anagram of Maniacal Norms.
This kind of craziness is becoming all too normal at the patent office.
Re: Re:
Three things every bride thinks about on her wedding day:
The Aisle
The Alter
The Hymn
Aisle, Altar, Hymn. Aisle, Altar, Hymn.
And she proceeds to do so over the rest of the marriage.
(untitled comment)
I have seen the cyber-enemy and he is us.
Re:
I'll repeat a point that I've made before: "You can't go ahead and lump copyright infringement in with theft because someone acquired something that they are not legally entitled to have. That logic makes driving with an expired license the same as grand theft auto, because you are enjoying the use of a vehicle that you are not legally entitled to use."
As much of a pain as the law is sometimes, distinctions and choice of words remain important.
Re:
They rely on short memories of the average person. They have to realize that the Internet is like a big memory extender.
Related:
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2012/08/corporations-are-not-people.h tml
Avaaz offends me in other ways
I can't remember which petition originally got me to sign up on Avaaz, but I am now informed at least once a week about the plight of someone somewhere needing a petition to help them out. Many of the issues are heartbreaking and horrifying. But I am somewhat offended by the constant reminders in my inbox of how horrible the world is. I would rather Avaaz just host the petitions and let the individual petition creators try to drum up signatures.
This latest strangeness of asking people about a particular petition seems to solidify my concerns about Avaaz as an organization.