I don't think any of that is an overreaction at all. I'd like to see a lot more products and services eliciting the same overreaction.
I don't really see why. Thing is, if Spotify were actually going to do those evil things, then there would be legit reasons to worry about the service. Changing the policy has little to do with the actual actions by the company.
That's why focusing on *the policy* is so ridiculous. The policy is meaningless. The actions are what matters.
I'm trying my hardest to figure out what you think this means. If someone signing me up for this, which has no impact on anything, other than that I got three random emails (and a good story to post on the blog), is "karma" then it sounds like I'm living a pretty clean life, huh?
IP doesn't fund anything, it's an investment protection.
That's not the way people talk about it -- which was the point we were making. Most people who support IP talk about it as it's necessary for any business model to exist. That's the point we are discussing.
As an aside, I'll also note that it's TERRIBLE investment protection.
It seems you're talking about funding not patents. Prize money and crowdfunding are not alternatives to patents and nor are they mutually exclusive - someone who wins a prize for a malaria cure can still have a patent, they just solved the funding.
As we noted in the podcast. We were pretty explicit that none of these models excludes using IP. We're just talking about getting past the idea that IP is the only possible way to fund these things.
Cowdfunding is a great alternative to venture capital, but it has no impact on IP and patents. An artist on patron still has copyright on their work. Amanda Palmer still gets and cashes her BMI/ASCAP cheques.
Again, we said that in the podcast.
Not sure what point you're making?
FFs, Fanclubs? We don't need IP because "FANCLUBS"
We didn't say that. But if you don't think fan clubs are huge money makers for some creators, you're wrong.
The bigger question is: what other telecoms are doing the same thing?
Did you read the original report?
The reports suggest AT&T was *by far* the closest cooperator with the NSA. Verizon was a part of a much smaller program, and it's likely a few others were as well. But none were anywhere near as close as AT&T.
All I've ever heard was that, unbeknownst to Google, the NSA was performing man-in-the-middle attacks on Google traffic when it traveled between Google's data centers. Google has since encrypted that traffic
He's referring, incorrectly, to the original news releases about the PRISM program, which is the program under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, that allows the FISA Court to order companies hand over *specific* information to the NSA. In order to "facilitate" this, a list of nine companies set up systems by which they would upload that information to a local computer system that the NSA could then access directly.
Because some reporters noted that it gave the NSA "direct access" some interpreted it -- incorrectly, as Blue does here -- that the NSA had "direct access" to backroom servers for these nine tech companies, including Google. This was wrong. What it meant was that they had direct access to grab the *specific information* that was highlighted in a court order from the FISA court, reviewed by the lawyers at these tech companies, and for the content not challenged, uploaded to servers for the NSA (and FBI) to collect it.
But what is being discussed here, with AT&T is entirely different than PRISM or what the commenter thinks was revealed about Google and other tech companies. This goes WAY WAY WAY beyond that on multiple levels. First, this is *voluntary* and not based on a court order. Second, this is much broader in coverage, handling full upstream collections and not just targeted accounts and information. Third, AT&T has much greater access handling content and connections well beyond customers of AT&T thanks to its role with backbone/interconnection.
All of this has been explained before, but this particular commenter chooses to remain ignorant for reasons on s/he understands.