The Android Market used to have a 48-hour refund period. They changed that policy to be a 15-minute refund period. The complaints were from developers creating apps whose value might be consumed in that 48-hour window (e.g., games with only a few levels). Hence, technically, Google could require a 7-day refund period, across the board, or perhaps only for app sold in Taiwan (though probably not only Taipei).
Google has no ability to enforce these terms on any other distribution channel, and developers in the Android Market itself have limited ability to offer longer refund periods themselves (per Google's apparent argument).
However, Taipei's 15-day demand means that paid apps will probably be pulled from Taiwan, at least for a while, as these sorts of changes aren't going to be implemented quite that quickly.
Of course, all this is making me think that my Android phone needs an app that warns me whenever the microphone is turned on and lets me block it... Anyone writing that app?
I do not believe that there is a way for an app to be notified that another app is using the microphone, sorry. Blocking it is even more out of the question -- any app that could do that could just as easily permanently block the microphone. The problem is that most "user defense" apps like this would need capabilities that could be exploited by malware, causing problems worse than what we started with.
Perhaps [lighting up a hardwired LED] should be done with smartphones too, for both the camera(s) and the microphone(s).
For the camera, preview mode needs to be active for the camera to work. While there is a fairly arcane way to get around this, the net is that the vast majority of Android camera-using apps will have an on-screen preview of what's coming in the camera lens. This will be more visible than an LED. There is no equivalent for the microphone, though.
Your post is fine, insofar as it pertains to the Gilmor "everybody should paid" line of reasoning.
Rushkoff isn't saying that, though. As he wrote, "It's because we write for HuffPo for free, and – because it's Arianna – we do it without resentment."
Do not discount the value of personal relationships here. I have little doubt that a fair number of contributors to HuffPo did so in part "because it's Arianna". This AOL deal changes that dynamic, and some, like Rushkoff, will elect to vote with their feet. I don't get the sense that Rushkoff would stop writing for HuffPo because he's not getting paid -- I get the sense that Rushkoff would stop writing for HuffPo because now it's really AOL.
Sure, some contributors to HuffPo did it for other reasons, such as you mention, and many of those will continue to do so for the same reasons. However, do not tar everyone with the same brush, please.
They are not indexing Google's search results, they are recording user behaviour from those who have opted to install the Bing toolbar. It has nothing to do with robots.txt
By your argument, nobody needs to pay attention to robots.txt for any purpose whatsoever, since the same data could be obtained by humans instead of robots.
That's fine, but then I don't want to hear anyone suggest that copyright holders (e.g., News Corp) should use robots.txt to stop from being indexed by search engines (e.g., Google), since search engines don't need to use robots for that purpose. At least then we have consistency.
Personally, I would prefer the consistent solution whereby robots.txt represents a "do not index" roster.
Yes, they are, in some cases. That was the point behind the "sting".
They're using user clickstream data as a piece of their own algorithm, just as Google uses link analysis as a part of their algorithm.
Correct. However, the "sting" demonstrates that Bing is perfectly willing to simply feed back Google search results, even in the absence of any other data.
Again, this was the point behind the "sting". The pages that Bing reported in its search results could only have come from Google searches, since the pages did not exist anywhere else, were not linked to from anywhere else, etc. It's not like Bing blended Google search results with umpteen other sources in these cases -- they just reported the Google results.
Furthermore, it indicates that Bing ignores robots.txt, since Google search results are marked as "disallowed". If Google wanted its search results to be indexed by other search engines, it would allow it via robots.txt.
In fact, this means that you're being a bit two-faced on this issue. For other places (AFP comes to mind), your argument has been "use robots.txt if you don't want to be indexed". Here, we have a case where somebody is using robots.txt to avoid being indexed...yet your argument now is that robots.txt can be safely ignored by the indexer. Which is it?
However, since I am writing in a subject area that is evolving rapidly, I publish on a subscription model. A $40 "Warescription" gets you a year's worth of updates to the books, which get updated almost every month. That also gets you access to occasional "office hours" online chats (CwF/RtB) for direct support on Android programming issues. While that price is much higher than Konrath's price point, it is a much better deal than print alternatives (3 books totaling ~1500 pages with frequent updates versus one print book with no updates). The price point plus the subscription model means I do not need quite the number of fans to be a success.
I do no traditional advertising. Rather, I give away my expertise frequently: ~3,100 answered questions on StackOverflow, thousands of posts on official Android support Google Groups, a bunch of open source components, etc. Despite a lack of advertising, I outsell traditional publishers -- I sold print rights to my original book to Apress, and I sell more Warescriptions than they sell print copies. That comes despite the fact that Apress gets their books in bookstores, university libraries, and such, plus has a real marketing budget.
I cannot speak across the board for self-publishing. However, in tech topics, if you are serious about it, you can do fairly well.
It is their responsibility, based on the criteria in the bill, to draw the line.
And only anonymous fools want laws that force judges to "draw the line". The rest of us would like something that we can work with, so we can actually understand when we are and are not in violation of the law.
Next, you'll argue that concrete speeding limits should be removed, with the police and judges allowed to arrest and jail anyone moving, based upon how they feel like they want to "draw the line" that morning.
If a small percentage of the IP "shared" on thepiratebay.org is legit, does that negate the large percentage of IP that isn't? I don't think so.
And therein lies the problem.
Using an advanced technique known as "math", you can see that there are a spectrum of percentages, from 0% of material that you deem is infringing to 100% of material that you deem is infringing. You clearly feel that sites with less than 100% of material that you deem to be infringing are "dedicated" to infringement. No doubt others feel the same way.
If COICA has some objective determination for what is "dedicated" (and, for that matter, "infringing"), I am unaware of it. The MPAA and kin will happily argue that this threshold is as close to 0% as they think they can get away with. Heck, they would love it if the percentage were exactly 0%, and that every Web site owed them protection money or would be shut down by Justice.
Re: Re: Re: It's OK to "hold off what technology allows"
Nevertheless, such devices present in trains, for example.
You are the one who chose the car analogy.
Some chemicals are actually forbidden for sale or export to "dangerous" countries.
Please name any export-controlled chemical that is involved in the construction of radio transmitters. Remember: you are the one who chose the radio transmitter analogy.
In facilities that actually deal with above mentioned chemicals there are logbooks, cameras, and ton of another security measures to make sure that only permitted people have access.
You are the one who chose the analogy of "Read chemistry book about C4 - are you allowed to make explosives?". In that scenario, it is far more likely for the work to be done in basements and garages. Once again, you set up the analogy, and now you do not like it.
I can see that English is not your native language, as evidenced by the numerous spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. Perhaps your analogy problems are tied into language limitations. Certainly, I would be loathe to try to draw analogies in Spanish or Japanese. I would recommend that you find an outlet for your opinions that is published in your native language, so language barriers do not hamper your ability to express your thoughts, as may be the case here.
Your car can drive 100mph and more, are you allowed to do it?
Mr. Doctorow is fighting against those who would install engine governors to prevent 100mph speeds, even if those governors would prohibit legitimate uses, such as driving on the German autobahn.
You can build powerful radio transmitter - does FCC allows you?
Mr. Doctorow is fighting against those who would ban the sale of copper to prevent people from operating "powerful radio transmitter", even though copper is used other places, and even though there is a threshold of "powerful" that a ban on copper would ignore.
Read chemistry book about C4 - are you allowed to make explosives?
Mr. Doctorow is fighting against those who would install cameras in every basement and garage in the off chance that somebody might make C4 there.
This article is typical Techdirt: dripping with contempt for authority of all kinds.
No, we drip with contempt for anonymous cowards. Hi!
It's certainly not possible that a TSA agent would be mature enough to check into a reported incident, find nothing to be concerned about, and go about her business, right?
Of course it is possible. However, there are plenty of examples of TSA employees who have difficulty performing their existing jobs (e.g., refuse to do a pat-down search instead of a full-body scan of a pregnant woman). And, there are plenty of examples of authority figures who seem to forget that public photography is legal. Both of those problems can be solved with improved pay and training for TSA employees, police, etc., but I imagine you wouldn't want to pay for that.
are the not just doing the evil windowing of their products
Windowing generally refers to distribution channels, not pricing. In the case of movies, windowing refers to timetables for distribution in theaters, on pay cable, on basic cable, on broadcast networks, at Netflix, at Blockbuster, on airline AVOD systems, etc.
why didnt they sell at the bundle price to start with, that is the standard techdirt logic, right?
No, "standard techdirt logic" does not preclude price changes over time. If you have evidence to the contrary, please include a TechDirt link next time.
Re: Not many differences between Android and iPhone
To be clear, Google is no different in most key areas-
To be clear, you don't know what you're talking about.
On Android, you can talk about Android all you want.
Score: Android=1, Apple=0
Yup, distribute away, if you know how.
It's easier and quicker than distributing for iPhone. Even easier-er and even quicker-er if you just distribute it yourself off your Web site, which iPhone does not support. Score: Android=2, Apple=0
Now, Google pushes all liability to the developers. You screw someone with your app, and the individual can come after you the developer.
Apple is not indemnifying developers -- they, like Google, push liability to the developers. Apple is saying that if they are declared jointly liable, they owe $50 max. On the scale of your average lawsuit, $50 is nothing, so these are roughly net. Score remains: Android=2, Apple=0
Same with Android. (3.3 in License)
Except that the code for the SDK is all open source, so you do not need to reverse engineer anything. Score: Android=3, Apple=0
Same with Android. You mess with their apps and they can revoke.
There is no clause in the Developer Agreement to that effect. You mess with their online services, and they can revoke. Furthermore, you don't need to agree even to that to build apps, by rolling an SDK out of the open source repo. Score: Android=4, Apple=0
Same with Android, section 7.2 of their agreement means they can pull your app from the Android market.
Except that you do not have to distribute through the Android Market. Unlike iPhone, you can distribute your app in other ways (Web site, other markets, install from SD card, etc.). Score: Android=5, Apple=0
In the end, there is that third force: publishing a patent (and more so if it is put into service) may encourage others to want a piece of that market, and they then have to actually innovate to come up with a different (and usually improved) way to accomplish this same thing.
Proof is in the pudding. You seem to be lacking in the pudding department.
FYI, the hyperlink is not patented, AFAICT. Feel free to embed links in your posts that provide evidence for your points. For example, you might consider, just maybe, linking to any example that demonstrates your "third force", where the existence of somebody else's patent materially and positively impacted others entering that market covered by the patent.
It's ironic that you make these claims as a comment to a post where the primary theme (IMHO) was Mr. Quinn doing the same thing you're doing -- making claims without adequate evidence.
After all, millions of patents have been granted in the US alone. Surely, you can come up with just one example, right?