"Elsevier's business model has been compared to a restaurant where the customers bring the ingredients..."
...takes them to another customer's house and kitchen,
"...do all the cooking, and then get hit with a $10,000 bill from the "restaurant".
Otherwise, the analogy gives Elsevier credit for the restaurant facility, but the peer review process is done by other Profs located at other universities. Elsevier is just a market...that charges like it were the supplier.
- It's like if a real estate agent sold your house, then kept all the money.
- It's like if Uber arranged for drivers with cars to do business with passengers, but after a driver gave one ride, Uber owns her car and she's not allowed to use it anymore.
- It's like if the NASDAQ hosted your trades and equity sells, but then owns your stock, and gives you a cut of the dividends.
- It's like if the RIAA companies produced your record, but then had you by the nutsack, owned your music, and extracted every penny they could from it, while giving the artist a pittance or nothing at all...hey wait, it IS like that.
"The objective is not so that the works are "available for our enjoyment""
Yes, it IS the objective. It is, in fact, the specific and ONLY objective of copyright. Offering creators temporary exclusive rights is just a means to the end.
Copyright was not created so that your content could be your private property. Nor so that you could monetize it. You need to read history, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Supreme Court's decisions...or just Techdirt.
Copyright's function is to distort the market with an artificial monopoly, for a period of time, in order to provide enough incentive for creators to share their content. But the objective is that last part, getting creators to share their content so that the public can benefit.
The laws were absolutely written to benefit the public, not the creator.
"It doesn't mean they are going to do much of anything with it today, tomorrow, or the next day."
Listen, I'll give you full points for your "Moreover" paragraph, and understanding the perverse incentives for spectrum rights buyers, but then you drop the ball.
You seem unaware that, in just about every nation, the regulators REQUIRE build-out and use from the spectrum auction winners, in a deliberate effort to block the kind of property speculation you describe.
Modern telcos are not stupid, but neither is the modern FCC. Nobel Econ winner Ronald Coase started to modernize the FCC's thinking to market-based in 1959, and its improved steadily since. The FCC knows that spectrum is a scarce resource, which ultimately belongs to the public. So any licensee of that spectrum is required to build-out service on it for the stated purpose, and thus offer consumer surplus to the citizens in the form of a communication or media service. Spectrum licenses are "use it or lose it".
Yeah, but you're kinda mixing up the ends and the means.
Google has not stopped moving towards its end goals: 1) Offer gigabit broadband to people as a trial business 2) Use competition and awareness of Google ISP service to push other ISPs in the direction of faster Internet, which behooves Google.
Fiber was the means to that end, but has high costs per home passed. So, as wireless offers better and better performance, Google will look to it more and more. Don't forget, they've already looked at Muni Wi-Fi, Balloons, drones, fiber, fixed wireless, and probably lots of other stuff as means to the end.
"copyright law is predicated on the theory that creators are incentivized to create new works by the prospect of reaping the economic fruits of their creative labor, which in turn benefits the public by increasing the number of creative works available for their enjoyment"
The objective is not so that the works are "available for our enjoyment", but rather that such works will eventually be fully ours, aka, Public Domain.
They act like the mid-state is the end game. It is not.
Just like the dunking machine at my high school fundraiser.
Sooner or later, the Principal gets soaked. It just takes one hit.
That's what's so evil about Thiel's crusade. If resources are unlimited, and no quarter is offered, then eventually, Gawker will lose, guilty or not.
Similarly, if a billionaire offered everyone in the country to support their lawsuit against you, for any claim...sooner or later you would lose one. And you'd be bankrupted by legal claims soon enough anyways.
True, Techdirt has called out most dumb security lapses. But I don't think the entire sector was considered stupid because of the lapses.
Take HTTPS web servers. Mike harped on that for years waiting for websites to figure out they should secure the connection. But at no point did anyone suggest the web was stupid, useless, or silly as a result.
Re: Once again: 'Everyone else is doing it' is not a valid excuse
There is a big difference between:
saying "Your article's should cover things I care about: starvation, jaywalking, etc"
and saying "You are consistently writing about one particular topic in a way that suggests a chip on your shoulder more than a fair evaluation."
"Exactly what is your objection to articles like this pointing out lousy security practices" My objection is not calling out the security. It is the content (article and comments) that are summarized as: "The IoT is dumb because it currently is insecure."
Read the article. That insinuation is in there. For example, 16 locks were tested. An abysmal 12 were hackable. OK, so was the conclusion that the other 4 are better products, and we should look to them? No, there is no reward for being one of the better-made locks. Instead, the entire sector is painted with one brush: "the dysfunction onion".
What is the objective? To push for better security, or to kill IoT with FUD? I think it's the former, and I think even Karl might agree -- but the article does the latter.