Sneeje's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the righthaven--schadenfreude dept
When I read Techdirt, one of the things I'm looking for are articles that help me understand the complex considerations between governmental power and individual rights. They interest me because I find that they always force me to deeply consider my own justifications and philosophies, and the debates in the comments are always spirited and thought-provoking. They also interest me because I can't help but stare in disbelief at the “reasoning” that is sometimes used. For example, take Yet Another Story Of A Guy Arrested For Filming Police. It is amazing to me that fundamental rights (such as those inherent in the First Amendment) can be so blatantly ignored. We're all human, but I feel like these rights should flow naturally into our judgment. Alas that it is not so. But never fear, there is also hope! As a counterpoint to the prior article, we also have the fact that Boston Pays $170,000 To The Guy Police Arrested For Filming Them.
So, to stay sane, that's another thing I look for: hope—that those responsible for resolving the complex interplay between government power and our rights will at least consider that limits to government power are valid and necessary. For example the article that came out Thursday, where the court is exploring whether there are limits to border searches: Court Suggests Politically Motivated Border Searches May Be Unconstitutional. If nothing else, that one had a lot of great advice on how to protect your data from the government should you foolishly decide to cross the border carrying your laptop.
Another good article in this area, while not strictly relating to limits of governmental power, Why Infringement Isn't Theft, should lead people to question the government's reasoning behind why it is willing to act on behalf of intellectual property advocates, which would be a limit in and of itself. Seeing such a prominent law professor take this stance certainly falls under the category of "hope", at least for me.
But perhaps the greatest reason I'm drawn to Techdirt is the gobs of articles that undermine widely- and blindly-held beliefs in the intellectual property arena, that challenge the "IP laws=good so more must be better" thinking and explore the unintended consequences of their existence. The first of these addresses one of the areas that most people have very little exposure to, the decision-making behind the scenes in the VC World. Anyone that is a student of economics knows that monopolies carry a lot of baggage and barriers to entry for startups, but this was the first time I thought about how those barriers were perceived. Monopolies Can Strangle Innovation shows us that the "tax" on success is a very real phenomenon.
Mike also pointed us to Jonathan Coulton to show us yet again that not all artists are looking to intellectual property protection to ensure their success. My favorite quote from Jonathan speaking about a free and open internet: "... if as a consequence of letting that do what it wants, we destroy a number of industries, including the record business, and maybe even including the rock star business, I think that humanity will be better off." Now there's a man that can see the big picture.
The next article that really struck me (and others too, judging by the volume of the comments) regarding these unintended consequences was Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl. I think that most people believe that patents, copyright, and trademarks are the province of the business world only and do not affect the average person in their daily life. That article is a perfect example of how that's just not true--and the more restrictive the laws around intellectual property get, it's not hard to see how much more collateral damage there will be.
I'll close with a confession. There is something else that I sometimes look for in my weekly Techdirt feed: schadenfreude. Yeah, I said it. I can't help but enjoy the unfolding implosion that is Righthaven, and this week we got two doses, Righthaven Stops Showing up to Court and Righthaven's CEO Files Statement About How Righthaven's Own Lawyer Won't Respond To Him. A little piece of me will die when Righthaven stops being worthy of coverage here, but I'm sure something else of even greater face-palmage will arise. So with that, here's to the next week!
Not convinced patents have anything to do with it
Mike, you yourself have pointed out the dimensions of competition. We all know they are price, service/features, and perhaps scarcity.
The brand names would never throw away their brand value (e.g., compete on price), so they have to compete on innovative features. Whether they could patent their features or not and minimize copying (theoretically), they would, IMO, still behave the way they are now. Perhaps even more so.
I do agree, though, that it would be interesting to see what the prices would be in a patent-free market.
Re: Re: Re:
And that is a particularly weak analysis since you have no evidence of such. It would be equally valid to claim that Mike is only stupid when you disagree with him and brilliant when you do.
But you already knew that. You prefer to peacock and try to make yourself feel superior to everyone else, without actually demonstrating any grasp of the material.
BTW, its not working.
Re:
You're right. It should be assumed as fact that federal judges are not human and therefore not capable of making mistakes.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You didn't answer my question, at least I don't think you did: do you believe that what a publishers' organization needs to offer and to be is not dramatically affected by the current technology and social trends?
Re: Re:
And Mike's post (and the original article) acknowledges this. I'm surprised you glossed over that.
Maybe the post didn't make this clear (debatable), but fundamentally, new technologies and new methods of social interaction are removing or minimizing any need for a middleman to reach large audiences.
Are you suggesting that doesn't radically change what a publishers' organization needs to offer and to be?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with Lobo, the logic is so twisted, the only possible reason for the posts could be to be contrary for contrary's sake.
Ergo, no point in debating empty rhetoric. The AC isn't interested in discussion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said, "arbitrary measure of success." Thankfully, most people of significant intelligence don't see things as rigidly as you, nor have such ridiculous hurdles for analysis.
Re:
I didn't need Al to tell me that though. Do you really believe that television shows are the networks' products? No, it's our eyeballs!
Google, facebook, etc. are just doing what television has been trying to do for sixty years--get accurate data on who is watching or using what they give away.
Re:
Appreciated!
Re: Crafty Devious Plan
Wait, you confused me with the last part. Were we trying to bribe them or launder money?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ummm... where does the request come from originally? Oh yeah, the government. Guess you forgot that.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're focusing too narrowly. The dispute is not entirely, central control versus "people" control. It is, abusive control versus control that is resilient to abuse.
That is a much more nuanced issue and is what we're trying to get at here. If ICANN established (and adhered to) some principles that acknowledged that the internet exists for the benefit (and not just economic) of all not the few and established methods for equitable (and not just equitable for those with money) dispute resolution, there might less of an issue.
If the goal is for governments and MNCs to gain control over the internet, then other options WILL arise because there will exist an unmet need (a need that has existed since forever) to communicate, innovate, and share culture freely.
Re: Re: Re:
Completely agree--ICANN is being very foolish here. They will very much rue placing themselves in the middle of the inevitable disputes. And the minute they are perceived as either not handling them timely or not handling them consistently (or both), the power will be yanked from them and likely handed to someone else which will invariably be worse for the rest of us I imagine.
Re: Re: Re:
Of course completely ignoring two additional facts: that doesn't prevent illegal behavior and you don't get your privilege revoked without due process.
And if you've ever spent time in a traffic court, you would know that SIGNIFICANT due process (many, many violations) occurs before revocation.
Re:
I'm inclined to agree. This is written about a lot on this site and we all see it, but I am continuously amazed by how blind people are to only the perceived benefits of their actions and not the side-effects or unintended consequences.
We've read over and over again about how other countries (China, Italy, France, etc.) have problems (pick one) with many of the major US Internet companies. Do we really believe that the only seizures are going to be of comepiratethis.com?
Re: Re:
I think there is a heee-youge gap between "acknowledging" their toys and "collusion". Megablocks and lego (mentioned above) are interchangeable, but no one accuses them of that. Tivo boxes work with many cable companies, etc.
Even if those examples are poor, the point still stands--there is much opportunity for competing companies to make products that work together w/o collusion.
For collusion to exist, there would need to be a major outcome such as keeping prices high, forcing other players out of the market or etc.
Re:
Actually that's a great example why it is still possible to compete without IP protection. My son has received both lego and megablocks sets as gifts. He LOVED the megablock sets (Halo, etc.) until he tried to put them together. They don't fit properly and sometimes pieces won't even stay connected.
Now, if given the choice, even if he likes the theme for the megablocks set, he will pass on them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, another part of the reason it is so complicated is that language is inherently vague. Words can have different meanings and scope to different people.
Legalese attempts to minimize that sloppiness by using special legal terms, as well as by using lots and lots of words to cover as many eventualities as possible.
All to varying degrees of success, of course.
Re: Re: Take it for what it's worth...
I'm not sure what you mean by "right answer". I don't think Mike or I were saying that there is an "answer" here, just that the behavior of students not being "on-task" is not an indicator of a lack of engagement with the fundamental education.
My read is that there has been a growing perception that students over the last ten years are somehow becoming poorer students and that laptops and electronic devices are degrading the educational experience, and this would dispute that.
This study seems to indicate that attention in class has little to do with class success (see correlation to final class grade above) and that gels with my experience.
Those who need to focus are doing so, and those who do not need to focus, aren't.
Take it for what it's worth...
Mike, I think you're spot on regarding why those with higher LSATs might be off-task more.
I'm going to freely admit that I am off-task in many, many meetings, and all throughout my MBA. Training too.
I used to feel very guilty about this, until I realized I need a very high density of information transfer per unit of time to remain focused. I'm not saying I'm some brilliant guy, I just cannot stand instruction or meetings that take 60 minutes to deliver 15 minutes (or less) of information. So, the minute I've grasped what's being said, I'm on to other things.
That said, if the meeting is highly interactive, social, etc., my focus will be dedicated.
So, I think the off-task behavior can be both an indicator of student dedication as well as the efficiency and quality of information transfer.