Markus Hopkins’s Techdirt Profile
|
|
About Markus Hopkins
I'm a systems administrator, IT consultant, and law student. I basically never sleep.
Occasionally, I also consult with local organizations on how they can take advantage of participating in their ecosystem, connecting with fans, and embracing the idea that their fans want to be able to access their content in the manner most convenient for them, not the manner the creator thinks is "best."
http://www.linkedin.com/in/markushopkins |
Markus Hopkins has not submitted any stories.
Submit a story now.
(untitled comment)
"Boyle's paper is a timely reminder that judges need to take into account the special nature of open source when considering whether to grant patent injunctions"
Seems to me that it's the lawyers on both sides who need to take this into account more than the judges. As we've seen with a lot of IP related suits, a defense attorney's failure to understand how new systems, technologies, and ways of doing things work often lead to a failure to bring up arguments that judges never become aware of. Even worse, when the attorney really thinks they "get it" they some times fail at the basic law (I'm looking at you here, Nesson).
My point is that an evaluation based on an understanding of the disruptive change in creative pursuits of all sorts requires lawyers who either are, or are willing to learn from, competent technologists and other experts. It's really up to them to educate the judges.
Home Concert/Dinner with AFP Backers
Since this post went live, the home concert and dinner options have both received 1 backer. That's $20,000 right there, and she's given herself an 18 month window to fold the events into her normal tour plans, so there aren't travel expenses to be concerned about.
They just don't like Mike
I think it's worth noting that this may have been in the course of being resolved by the time Mike posted, since in the screenshot above there are 3 "shares" on facebook already. I agree it should not have happened in the first place, but at least in this instance facebook was responsive, even if it wasn't an instant fix.
Re: Re: And then there's Planetary Resources
In the reading I've done in the last few minutes, it looks like your step 3 may not be part of the calculus at all. The mined material may be used "in situ" to help on our way to exploring/colonizing/monetizing the solar system. I will say though that Diamandis has mentioned funding such a project by speculating in the markets that such mining might impact (in a TED talk), so maybe he does intend to get the stuff back here (if that's even what this is all about).
I agree that steps 1 and 2 are problematic, but it at least looks like we have some sense of what the rough makeup of many of the asteroids are, and what it will take to reach them, even if not economically feasible under any existing models.
Re: Re: And then there's Planetary Resources
While we'll find out more next Tuesday about the nature of the company, I did a little follow up reading on asteroid mining. This section of the Asteroid Mining wikipedia article (along with a few other sections/pages), seems to raise the possibility that in "the near future" asteroid mining might be feasible, and specifically, NEO's might be a better option than the moon due to the lower gravitational propellent costs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining#Asteroid_selection
However, this is just quick and dirty research, and the source cited by wikipedia is not one I'm familiar with, and also seems to have "this is possible!" leanings.
And then there's Planetary Resources
Rumor on the street is that Diamandis, Simonyi, Schmidt and co. want to mine asteroids.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/27776/
Re: Re: have you seen this?
This is actually wrong. The roku sticks need a HDMI port. I don't mean to be rude, but in half the time it took to write your comment, you could have clicked on the link of the previous commenter and found out that the only port on the stick is HDMI (and that's just from the pictures). Also, the only "upgrade" required is MHL. From the article:
"MHL is a new standard that uses the HDMI connector on TVs to deliver power and other critical elements for the streaming experience. There are already TVs with MHL from Samsung and Toshiba, and you’ll see a bunch more announced at CES."
Going forward, most TVs will be including this support, Smart TV or no, so while you sort of have a point about the current crop not supporting the stick, you're absolutely wrong about the need for a Smart TV with an "upgraded usb port," whatever that even is. And ultimately, this solution really is the best of both worlds. Bundle a new TV with the stick, and now it's a removable component that can be upgraded in a few years. While you could argue that in the mean time the standard has shifted away from powered HDMI to something else, consider that A/V, power, and a network connection are really the only requirements a set top box (for IP type connections) really needs, so there would be no good reason for roku to stop supporting this type of connection, even if they add others.
This solution really takes care of all of the concerns of the blog post (and has the added bonus of not actually being "set top"), and I expect to see other Set top box manufacturers following roku's lead in the not too distant future.
Paul Even Admits It
I actually commented on the article when it first showed up (and referenced a great techdirt post), and I got Paul to admit that even he sees that plagiarism are copyright are different. As you can see if you read the thread though, he really only seems to think this matters once the term of copyright has expired. Forget the fact that we're talking consumption vs. passing off, they're both using copyrighted material, so they're the exact same kind of harm. But we're not even necessarily talking about harm here, we're talking about dishonesty. Just because plagiarism may also be an infringing act doesn't make them the same, or even related. It just means they can happen at the same time. And apparently, timing is all it takes to make us all hypocrites.
Re: Re: WP:NPOV, Neutrality
That's actually not what I'm suggesting. I can point you to several instances where a contributor is immediately assumed to be a shill just because of their user name. This sometimes happens when a new user sees a problem with the article, and since that is what is on their mind, they incorporate that topic into their user name. The result is that anything they do is immediately assumed to be done for the purpose of advancing the POV of the topic of the article, and the reaction is fast and harsh (and where the user gets another chance, it is often demanded by wikipedia editors that they change their user name to be something less tied to any possible topic). In my last recommendation, I actually made quite clear that I think it's important to be very aware of WP:COI, which has specific recommendations for when and how to disclose your relationship to a topic.
COI on Wikipedia
Having gone through a similar experience myself, I've found that in navigating the potential "Conflict of Interest" waters on Wikipedia, it is important to know the rules as well, if not better than, the editors who revert even positive and accurate changes that rely on secondary sources. I got into it with a few editors less than a week after joining. This was over an entry that was accurate, but had little information citable to a 3rd party, and I found a few things to be VERY helpful in dealing with the overall atmosphere:
1. Pick a user name that is arbitrary, and not related to your business or clients.
2. Whenever possible, find a source to cite to that is not a property owned by the topic of the article.
3. Watch the article's talk page.
4. If anyone raises concerns, pay attention to their talk page, and the talk page of any other users that get involved.
5. When the ONLY source is the subject's own information, only mention those things that would have no impact on the subject's perception either way (ie, boring facts).
6. Know WP:VERIFY (especially WP:SOURCES and WP:ABOUTSELF) and be very aware of WP:COI.
Re: Re: I Can Always Tell A "Tim" Article
Since no one else has noted my comment in any way, I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm going think about keeping thoughts about things I don't actually do myself, to myself.
And sadly, that also means I've probably just crossed into this territory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfG51ii_K_Y&feature=relmfu
Re: "only registered non-profits are supposed to use the donate button"
On top of that, the only other policy Regretsy MIGHT have violated prior to putting the button out was one stating that you must be pre-approved to use the donate button when acting "AS a charity" [capitalization mine]. Now, that can be read as either taking donations for something that looks like charity, which is vague enough, or it could be read as taking donations while portraying yourself to be a charity. Regretsy certainly wasn't doing the latter, and since that is a reasonable interpretation, Paypal should have been much more understanding. Paypal *might* require proof no misuse is happening, and they *might* require pre approval, but when you make the buttons so easy to use, you should really make this a LOT more clear than they did. That alone makes their "apology" really hollow, since it claims that their policies are in fact clear (half the apology is devoted to that point) when they really are not... For a more in depth analysis of the policies, and how hard they are to find, go here: http://bit.ly/udiNGK
Re: Why publishers' profits are relevant
So we should be talking about that, and those numbers. I'd love to see the data on that. Talking about profits from who knows exactly what sources of income is unhelpful, until we can see specifics. That would have been a great article to read, had it been written here, or at the referenced blogs.
Re: Re: I think the idea is great, but...
No it's not. The fact that PLoS ONE can keep in business based on the fees garnered from the authors and authors' institutions already shows that research can be funded that way. The purpose of discussing the profits of the companies is meant to show that their profits alone could also allow open access (and thereby imply they are hampering this effort because they can, and not because it is a reasonable part of their particular business model). My point is that we're comparing apples to oranges with the profits talk, because front end fees are not their only source of revenue. Maybe it's most of it, but taking away even a very small percentage moves us much farther away from the 1350/1385 number that is being bandied about. Again, PLoS shows this can work, so we don't even need to worry about whether the big players can make it work, but the article implies they could just flip a switch and still operate at at least break-even, which has not been shown at all.
I think the idea is great, but...
The logic here is flawed, at least in terms of taking the companies' profits and saying they there is enough from those to fully fund open access. The breakdown occurs when you consider that those same profits come from charging fees (subscription or otherwise) for access to the content it is proposed they could provide open access to. While it it is great that the PLoS ONE model is profitable, to act like the other companies' profits exist independently of access charges does not further the discussion.
Re:
Thank you, Ozymandius.
Super Genius
Guys, guys, come on now... I think Righthaven deserves to be cut a little slack here. After all, they actually believed that their scheme to be assigned only the right to sue (despite laws to the contrary) would work. Now, either they are so dumb they deserve our pity, or they are so forward thinking and creative that we should hail them as visionaries. They're probably only a few years ahead of their time, come to think of it. Their actions were so prescient that in a few years when TPP allows such behavior generally, Righthaven should make sure to sue anyone else that follows their lead for copyright infringement!
My God... It's full of piracy!
I know several people that have learned japanese in order to be able to read manga that is unavailable in english. It seems like with a community as active and passionate as this, the threat of "piracy" could be turned into a huge win for manga producers. They could hold contests among fans for the best translation of a given work, and use this to hire translators that are passionate, or even hold contests on a regular basis. With the contests idea, if you have a contest for each release, and the prize is something like early access to new content, or the ability to weigh in on translations or plot arcs in the future, you engage your readers, and you avoid the costs of hiring translators (that may not even be as good as your passionate fans). This can be extended to subs/dubs of anime as well. It's unfortunate that when content producers are late to the game, they always miss the opportunities that an organic community may provide them; all they think is "My God... it's full of piracy!"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Monsanto should have gotten nailed on sloppy drafting
Also, if you do hear back, and it's something different, I'd appreciate you sharing it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Monsanto should have gotten nailed on sloppy drafting
I agree with your assessment regarding the court's opinion on self-replicating materials. I was attempting to say that I believe allowing a patent on such things, as opposed to the process that leads to the original creation (ie, the method of inserting DNA) is a troubling aspect of the patent system, for the reasons stated by many other commenters, and many people elsewhere (eg, if Monsanto finds a crop based on their seed, it doesn't matter if the wind blew it onto your farm, you are guilty of infringement). Under our current system, I understand Monsanto patenting the process for inserting genetic material, if it is a patent worthy process, but not over the continued use of the seed line (although potentially on an independent creation of a genetically identical line). If they had a patent on the process, it would encourage a distinctly different business model from seed selling, such as a business creating new seed lines for specific uses ("designer" seeds), where the compensation would not just be for the first generation of seeds, but for the design process itself. However, to give them a patent that allows them to sue for infringement over the results of a natural process grants them an overly broad right.
On your second point, my guess is that the representative would say that while producing a new crop of seeds may be a foreseeable result of planting, which is an allowed use following a "commodity" sale, the newly created crop of seeds should be destroyed in order to prevent damage due to the infringing act of creating a new product. While I disagree that this is what the license grants, partly due to its language, and partly due to other provisions restricting this behavior as it regards original purchasers, it is not an entirely meritless reading, especially in light of the current limits of the exhaustion doctrine (ie, the patent is only exhausted only as to the actually sold product).