If I had to guess, if that blog was that popular, NYT would just copy it and move it in-house (along with any revenue that can be gained). Before you laydown the astroturf, you gotta kill the grass first.
Not that I'm agreeing with them... but it looks like they're just trying to artificially make their content more scarce so it'll worth more.
I don't see how you can depreciate innovation as it gets old. I can see how an innovation may not reach its full potential unless you give it enough time to evolve, but depreciate older innovations? I disagree. Just because iPod came along, it shouldn't discount CD-players when it was popular. In fact, I think the value of innovation should be accrued over time, so something like the wheel will have tremendous value since we've been using it for so long and its value will only stop growing until we stop using/producing it.
The down side of not having software patents is that any successful software can be out done by a bigger corporation and offer it for free just for the sake of killing your company and retain marketshare (remember microsoft?).
I agree independent invention is very likely in the software world, but the real trick is how do you separate them from just copycats?
Blog about the music all you want, but you bring troubles onto yourself when you post actual files. Just have everyone start posting links to a bit torrent site that has the entire album and stick it to the labels.
You may think it's harmless for a school to copy the logo. But what if the school's football team is horribly bad and constantly gets beat by the other schools whose mascots are Ford, Toyota, and Chevy? I think the company has the right to prevent itself from possible embarrassing situations if they can. With the way that corporations are paying to rename sports stadiums and such, to allow this might be assumed by others as endorsement.
It's a hearing about the merger of two huge companies, so naturally people are concerned about the monopolistic effects of that union. He lied because he didn't want to leave the image of NBC using its powers to force another company into doing its wishes.
I agree that it would be hilarious if Hulu now unban Boxee users, though, not likely.
"How many people will watch the Super Bowl? How many will watch a torrent of it 6 months from now? It's stale bread."
That's true for "live broadcast", not live performances, and not so for TV shows and Movies. If I missed a live broadcast, I would rather just watch the highlights/summary after the fact instead of sit through the whole thing which is usually 90% crap.
If your "stale bread" has no value, explain the compilation albums, DVD releases, movie rentals, file-sharing popularity, all are "after the fact".
The goal was to have a picture that represented Australia for the Australia day. A little girl simply thought it would be nice to include the flag because it represented a part of Australia, not knowing the flag was copyrighted. The copyright holder, while should be flattered, has perfectly good reason to deny the request since it may not want to have any ties to any corporations. Now ask yourself this:
Would you feel any different if it was Microsoft (or any other evil company) that made the request and was denied?
If a Chinese company was making a drawing that represented America and it included the confederate flag, would you feel any better if it was denied to do so, assuming the flag was copyrighted?
Anyone can make a flag, you can make a flag for your family if you want and copyright it. Would you give anyone free permission to use it? Wouldn't you feel that it's your right to deny anyone from using it, regardless of your reasons?
Just claiming you're a service provider doesn't always cut it. I think ultimately, the service provider should have some responsibility for the action of its users if it's service is not completely "generic". For example, bit torrent sites are like a search engine, but you can't say they're like google because their services is 99% illegal downloads. If I open a "service" to allow my users to hack into CIA computers, you think they would care if I'm only a service provider?
People can use legal jardon all they want, in the end, that's why we have a jury system so people can use common sense to determine a case. If a service is intended to provide ways to by-pass security, then craigslist has some ground for argument.
On a side note, related to the ad-skipping service, what if those site now change their ad page to say "please login with "FREEPASS" to see the next page? Then if the ad-skipping program automatically enter the password for the user to skip to next page, would that consider as by passing security? With capchas, they clearly "display" the pass code needed to continue, so what's the difference?
Clearly, I don't know which side I'm on... but I'm enjoying the conversation here.
We may be overlooking the intentions of these ideas, which were meant to be helpful.
We allow patents so individuals can log their ideas so they work on implementing it and not worry about someone else steal it and beat them to the punch. Helpful? I would say yes.
Something like a patents marketing allows one to sell their ideas so they can see fruition of their ideas even when they don't have the resource to implement it, and yet still get some monetary compensation for coming up with the idea. Helpful? I would say yes.
No doubt, there are people/companies that are abusing the system that had good intentions. We're seeing how they are abusing it, can't we figure out a way to stop the abuse instead of trashing a system that is suppose to help the individual inventors? (and patent it :)