Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
You have to stop putting things in such childlike, simplistic terms.
You want examples of Techdirt speaking out against bad regulation? Go see our positions on: every copyright bill of the past 10 years, every free trade agreement of the past 10 years, Europe's Right To Be Forgotten and other data protection and privacy regulations, many bills in the US such as the Cloud Computing Act, internet regulatory efforts in China and Russia and India and countless other countries, state-level attempts to regulate VOIP, etc, etc, etc. Go read our long roster of posts exposing and criticizing about regulatory capture or the revolving door between government and industry.
Criticizing bad regulations makes up a gigantic portion of what we do here.
The FCC's net neutrality regulations are virtually the only example of a tech-related government regulation we support, because we felt they were an effective solution and potentially the only workable solution at the time to a very real problem.
WHAT are you talking about? When have we ever "trashed free market principles"? We've long advocated for the power of the free market - especially in the realm of technological innovation. Is this entirely because we supported the FCC's net neutrality regulations? Get over it dude.
Again, you're pointlessly treating it as inseparable. It might be your opinion that in order to be critical of the RIAA, one must also oppose regulation in all its forms - but that sounds like simplistic nonsense to me.
Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
Just the bad ones and the ones that promote corruption.
Oh damn, why didn't I think of that? It's so simple! All we have to do is stop the bad regulations! All this time wasted trying to parse the intricacies of law when all along the key was just to say no to bad laws.
Why do you treat "regulation" as one inseparable monolith? Are you honestly saying that if someone supports the FCC's current net neutrality regulations, it means they must by definition also support copyright and the RIAA's abuse of it? Do you realize how silly and simplistic that sounds?
Neither Techdirt nor anyone else I know of "generally agrees with regulation". There are good regulations; there are bad regulations; there are potentially good regulations that are abused or have side effects; there are potentially bad regulations that still accomplish certain goods; there are areas where regulation is one possible solution but not the only one; there are areas where regulation is more likely to be problematic than helpful; there are areas where regulation looks like the best solution.
what is the point of all of this? You have reported on RIAA and many others like them, and I have yet to see any success.
Really? We were deeply involved in the mass protest that stopped SOPA - the most referenced source on the issue on the whole internet, according to one study. We also played a big role in bringing more attention to ACTA, which faced widespread protests in the EU. And both the blog and our research reports have been deeply involved in the ongoing fights over all sorts of topics we cover. And I like to think we've played a pretty critical role in making some of these topics more widespread, and educating much greater numbers of people about the issues. This is all a big, complex, ongoing process - what does success look like to you?
I'm not sure what you mean. All daily deal posts have been under the "Daily Deal" byline since almost the very beginning. There were a few at the beginning, well over a year ago, that had mine or Gretchen's byline on them simply because we were using our editor accounts to put the posts into the system and schedule it - but since we weren't actually writing them and don't really have much to do with them, we realized that made no sense and quickly changed them all to the new "Daily Deal" byline. It's been that way ever since, AFAIK.
We'd like to do that too, but currently we can't have separate artwork for the hoodie without a separate campaign - and hoodies so far haven't proven popular enough to sustain a Teespring campaign by themselves.
Funny, Eurostile was one of the fonts I toyed with when building it - but I decided against it since, to my mind, it's passed from "chic" into "vastly overused". I'm sorry you don't like the font ("Furore", if you're curious), but I *think* you're in the minority.
The goal was always a simple design, and it's been extremely popular so far - but if there's more interest in a fancier version, we may create a 2.0 at some point.
Before patents, advances and inventions were often kept completely secret -- in some cases, entire secret societies grew out of that tendency. This was, in the long run, terrible for society at large.
That's the story we are told. But it is, at best, a half-truth.
For one thing, patents were around for some 400 years as simply a form of government-granted monopoly, before even being talked about as a form of "intellectual property". And throughout all that time and beyond, there's basically no example of a period in which patents served the idyllic purpose they are supposed to according to the "secrecy" narrative. From the very start, they were a means of wheeling and dealing with governments granting patents to "inventors" solely on the basis of making everyone involved a bunch of monopoly money, not any sort of reasonable rationale.
There wasn't any requirement to publish the details of a patent for the first several hundred years of patents. The notion of having to examine a patent application for things like prior art and obviousness before granting it is even newer than that.
Nevertheless, let's look at the notion of patents as a way to prevent secrecy seriously for a moment, and assume it's the true intent: where's the evidence that this was a problem, or that patents fix it? As we see throughout the world today and throughout history, most things are invented contemporaneously and independently by multiple people in different places - because most "inventions" are in fact natural innovations based on what has come before. So, where are the great inventions that were lost because they were secret? Where are the great patents that were published to a cry of "thank god they revealed that and we can all use it in couple decades", as opposed to the cry of "fuck so now we have to wait a couple decades before we can use that?"
I don't know of any. And even if you can make the case that this was true historically, to me that has little bearing on the situation now. Now, the reality is that keeping a patentable invention secret is basically impossible anyway - there are enough smart people with enough resources that any invention is reverse engineered and fully understood, or else simply reproduced, within moments of hitting the ground. There are endless real examples of patents restricting innovation, and only vague hypothetical examples of how they promote it.
I'm not saying the notion of patents necessarily has to be entirely rejected, but it certainly has to be re-evaluated from the ground up. And in order to do that, we must look at the reality, not the myth of secretive guilds and the glorious publishing of patents. The reality is that they have always been a means of building monopolies in order to make business-shrewd individuals rich first, and a means of promoting innovation second if at all.