"And if Moore wants to avoid a repeat, rather than lashing out mistakenly, and misunderstanding what happened, she should perhaps spend some time actually learning about why people were so upset by SOPA. But, of course, we know that won't happen."
Good. If they don't learn how they were beat, they are easily defeated next time. I see this as the only way to fight back against corporate money. Not just this, but any issue.
Using open source for a business (or not) I believe is a support/training issue. If you're running a business, and you hit a bug or it not running as expected, posting to a forum and waiting for an answer is not a good business practice for most. Kudos to those open source companies
that offer support contracts, but I think the lack of them is the main reason adaptation to open source is as slow as it is.
They would have server migration costs if the servers were not necessary in the first place. I wonder when they will figure out the servers cost more then they are worth?
"Is this really the message the US DOJ and White House want to be giving the day after mass, widespread protests happened concerning a fear that this new law would be used to take down websites?"
I'm sure this was planned and in the works way before blackout day was planned, however this is exactly the message they wanted to send. The DOJ doesn't care what anybody thinks. They just follow orders. If you want to blame someone, it's Biden.
This approach is in direct response to what has always been said..."the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." They want a solution that allows them to whack the moles that they have already learned, will spring up. The reality is they are learning in spite of themselves.
First they learned, 'we need to do this'.
Now they know, 'we need to do this quickly to keep up'.
The next inevitable step is, 'we won't succeed regardless how fast we are'.
True, but if you are aware of one, it's cheaper to contest it then drop a whole product line. Unless of course, it was unprofitable anyway. The company wouldn't bother defending something they ready to drop anyway. That may have been the case here.
@Helmet While your solution to have the USPTO find prior art as part of their job is, in principle, correct it is also impractical. Do you honestly believe they could do a good job in finding any prior art given their workload and their performance so far? Luma obviously did a better job at it then they did. Luma had too much faith in the patient review, and didn't think it was worth spending the money invalidating a patient application they thought was too ridiculous to ever be approved.
Standing on your principles here wouldn't help fix a broken system. I think it would be better to have an open peer review approach. Anything considered 'obvious to those skilled in the art' would be quickly discredited and the patient denied.
If the ISP decided to give 3 or 4 percent in total and divide that amongst anybody that came calling, that would show them.
2 rights holders each get 1/2 of the 3-4%
3 rights holders each get 1/3 of the 3-4%
4 rights holders each get 1/4 of the 3-4%
...and so on. I know... You're all saying they shouldn't get anything, but think about it for a second... The current beneficiaries would immediately sue any newcomer for their alleged share of this pot, instead of suing the ISP for not paying. It instantly turns it into the rights holder's legal problem, and to the ISP it's just a budgetable cost of doing business. They would pass it on to us of course, but it would never get any bigger as a percentage of the ISP's revenues.
Raising punitive damages would do nothing. No possible amount of money could be a deterrent for our wasteful government. If the punitive damages where against the employee them self, not enough people would ever know of the outcome to be deterred either.
But there have been those who carried the bad boy reputation all the way to the bank. You guys aren't thinking outside the box. Remember, she makes more then all of us [put together]. You can't complain about what obviously works.
I never said the costs wouldn't be passed down. But if the final price is still competitive with the surcharge included, it won't matter. The argument you are making is a moral one, not an economic one.
If Google or the government don't care, why should I? Google obviously doesn't feel like it's loosing any money. Mike often makes the claim [indirectly] that economics isn't a zero sum game. Here's an [albeit strange] example. It doesn't matter how bizarre the licensing is, if the final price to the consumer is competitive.
If they don't learn, it's a good thing.
"And if Moore wants to avoid a repeat, rather than lashing out mistakenly, and misunderstanding what happened, she should perhaps spend some time actually learning about why people were so upset by SOPA. But, of course, we know that won't happen."
Good. If they don't learn how they were beat, they are easily defeated next time. I see this as the only way to fight back against corporate money. Not just this, but any issue.
Re: *Mission Accomplished*
I agree with you. The point was to get Megaupload offline however the means, and scare the others. It worked.
Open source for business
Using open source for a business (or not) I believe is a support/training issue. If you're running a business, and you hit a bug or it not running as expected, posting to a forum and waiting for an answer is not a good business practice for most. Kudos to those open source companies
that offer support contracts, but I think the lack of them is the main reason adaptation to open source is as slow as it is.
How much was that migration?!
They would have server migration costs if the servers were not necessary in the first place. I wonder when they will figure out the servers cost more then they are worth?
Re: Re: Re: The industy's assertion isn't wrong...unfortunately
Ding! Ding! Ding! 1 smart point for AC #2
The industy's assertion isn't wrong...unfortunately
"we can be as secret as we want... and we still win."
This is true. Obama signed the thing, after all. Looks like they were right.
(untitled comment)
"Is this really the message the US DOJ and White House want to be giving the day after mass, widespread protests happened concerning a fear that this new law would be used to take down websites?"
I'm sure this was planned and in the works way before blackout day was planned, however this is exactly the message they wanted to send. The DOJ doesn't care what anybody thinks. They just follow orders. If you want to blame someone, it's Biden.
He's full of crap
Did you notice that, "I'll put a hold on everything Obama did..."? The president can't put a hold on anything previously passed by congress.
Re: Re: Faster then the speed of internet
You are right of course. I missed a step.
Faster then the speed of internet
This approach is in direct response to what has always been said..."the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." They want a solution that allows them to whack the moles that they have already learned, will spring up. The reality is they are learning in spite of themselves.
First they learned, 'we need to do this'.
Now they know, 'we need to do this quickly to keep up'.
The next inevitable step is, 'we won't succeed regardless how fast we are'.
The Padawans are slow to learn.
(untitled comment)
"If there's too many to prosecute, either get more lawyers and judges, or choose your targets more carefully."
Or maybe this is a stupid law that no reasonable person wants to follow and should be repealed...prohibition, anyone?
Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
True, but if you are aware of one, it's cheaper to contest it then drop a whole product line. Unless of course, it was unprofitable anyway. The company wouldn't bother defending something they ready to drop anyway. That may have been the case here.
Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
@Helmet While your solution to have the USPTO find prior art as part of their job is, in principle, correct it is also impractical. Do you honestly believe they could do a good job in finding any prior art given their workload and their performance so far? Luma obviously did a better job at it then they did. Luma had too much faith in the patient review, and didn't think it was worth spending the money invalidating a patient application they thought was too ridiculous to ever be approved.
Standing on your principles here wouldn't help fix a broken system. I think it would be better to have an open peer review approach. Anything considered 'obvious to those skilled in the art' would be quickly discredited and the patient denied.
3 of 4 % as a whole would screw them....
If the ISP decided to give 3 or 4 percent in total and divide that amongst anybody that came calling, that would show them.
2 rights holders each get 1/2 of the 3-4%
3 rights holders each get 1/3 of the 3-4%
4 rights holders each get 1/4 of the 3-4%
...and so on. I know... You're all saying they shouldn't get anything, but think about it for a second... The current beneficiaries would immediately sue any newcomer for their alleged share of this pot, instead of suing the ISP for not paying. It instantly turns it into the rights holder's legal problem, and to the ISP it's just a budgetable cost of doing business. They would pass it on to us of course, but it would never get any bigger as a percentage of the ISP's revenues.
Raising punititive damages would be a waste of time
Raising punitive damages would do nothing. No possible amount of money could be a deterrent for our wasteful government. If the punitive damages where against the employee them self, not enough people would ever know of the outcome to be deterred either.
Re: Re: Isn't a persona a scarce good?
But there have been those who carried the bad boy reputation all the way to the bank. You guys aren't thinking outside the box. Remember, she makes more then all of us [put together]. You can't complain about what obviously works.
Re: Re: Isn't a persona a scarce good?
And what exactly are your objections to performance art?
Re: Re: Why Care?
I never said the costs wouldn't be passed down. But if the final price is still competitive with the surcharge included, it won't matter. The argument you are making is a moral one, not an economic one.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Care?
I agree completely Sar. The that argument is the very reason for our over reaching and damaging IP law in the first place.
Why Care?
If Google or the government don't care, why should I? Google obviously doesn't feel like it's loosing any money. Mike often makes the claim [indirectly] that economics isn't a zero sum game. Here's an [albeit strange] example. It doesn't matter how bizarre the licensing is, if the final price to the consumer is competitive.