Yeah, I still think we can do something with it, but it was a learning experience in terms of learning how to keep Step 2 interesting over the long haul. I think that there may be opportunities in the future to use it as a part of Copia, but Copia is a very different thing than Step 2 ever was.
Step 2 was an experiment, and it was a good learning experience all around. Part of innovating is experimenting -- and if all of your experiments succeed every time, it means you're not really pushing yourself far enough.
Innovation is great but it rarely triumphs over the path dependency created by regulation.
I don't disagree -- nor is that what we're arguing here.
We're not saying "regulate or innovate." We're saying that innovators aren't interested in going through the full process required to manage the regulatory/policy environment. So our goal with Copia is to focus on the aspects they can and will impact.
This is not a rejection of the policymaking field at all. Just a recognition of the simple fact that innovators DON'T CARE about that enough, because it's a totally different mindset.
I think you misread what this post was about.
The Internet is a case in point. It ran largely unregulated for a long time and off the radar. Once it was clear that it was not a fad, regulators slowly began applying existing law to it. Drones and 3D printing are more current examples.
Again, don't disagree -- but that's not the point of what we're saying.
You seem to be treating this as an anti-regulatory screed. It is not.
We're just saying that Copia's focus is on things innovators can have a real impact on today. That's it.
There is a window of opportunity for innovation between the proof of concept and the proof of power when innovation is ascendant. Once that window closes, innovation must compete with regulation and it is not a fair competition.
Again, that is unrelated to the point we are discussing here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Perhaps because I have worked with other attorneys versed in trademark law, including The Disney Co., and not once has any of them expressed a view of trademark law such as you proffer. This is likely because they were not inclined to engage in idle speculation of dubious merit.
You are seriously arguing that no one at a large company like Disney has ever threatened someone making their own version of a public domain work that they themselves had used to make something?
I like how copyright advocates regularly think that they should be allowed to call anyone they disagree with pirates and thieves, but any remark that might even remotely hurt their feelings is considered "defensive and petty".
What's especially funny is the guy who made the "defensive and petty" comment hangs out here trolling the site, constantly making defensive and petty insults on anyone who dares to question his beloved copyright or patent system (oh, and the surveillance state, too).
I see. Something is fundamentally wrong when a piece of legislation that serves no purpose other than establishing a clear benefit for domestic producers at the expense of all others is taken off the books.
No one is arguing about that. Why change the subject other than the obvious: you and your friends want TPP so you'll mislead to get people away from the point.
You're so transparent. And not the good kind of transparency.
The point is simple. In fact, if you are who I think you are, I remember long debates with YOU about your insistence that ACTA and TPP could not and would not force the US to change a single law. You were most insistent on that fact.
And yet, when we post an example proving that you were full of shit, look how quickly you show up to try to change the subject.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I hope so
Hey, I know of an even better to get to work that wasn't even mentioned. Just open the door and walk through. Takes about 2 seconds, doesn't require any transportation devices at all and people are doing it today. Blows those "alternative transportation" ideas completely away!
We actually DID discuss walking as the better alternative in many cases.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Car Ownership On The Way Out?
Then maybe *don't present your argument with clickbait headlines that you have to defend in almost every comment*?
1. It's not a clickbait headline. 2. It's a podcast, and the point is to listen to the whole discussion. 3. The discussion itself was about the question in the headline. In other words, the headline is an accurate portrayal of the question we used as the jumping off point for the podcast.
And in many cities the average person today cannot hold a job without a car.
That's wrong. They cannot hold a job without *transportation* which is the point of the podcast. If there were alternative forms of transportation that are more effective and cheaper, then they wouldn't need to own a car.
Which was what we said on the podcast that you're now slamming.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Car Ownership On The Way Out?
It's LAUGHABLE to suggest otherwise, hence the initial post. The idea that car ownership is on the way out because of a barely noticeable blip is retarded. Yes - I went there. :P
Uh. Ok. None of this has anything to do with the actual discussion we were having. I don't see why you think because of your observations of people on the roads, that it has any impact on the kinds of points being made in the podcast.
Being optimistically pedantic here, but Inglewood didn't necessarily spend $50,000 -- they signed a retainer giving the attorney that amount, but that's for her firm to bill upon. Perhaps they believed that there was a decent chance this would go through substantial motion practice, so they needed a big warchest to draw upon. I think it's fairly clear that's not going to happen.
So, if the attorney bills less than $50k on this case, Inglewood should get the balance refunded to them. And if we're judging the quality of Inglewood's opposition to the motions to strike and dismiss, Inglewood should get about... oh, I'd say, $50,000 back.
From time to time I need to do light hauling. From time to time I need to pull a trailer. I can't do either of those with Uber.
Did you listen to the podcast? We actually make it clear that Uber alone is not going to get rid of cars. We talk about a variety of *other* things that might get people to that point.
For example, if, from time to time, you need to pull a trailer, then what if you could just have a rental truck delivered to you at those times, rather than having to own one for all the times you don't need to pull a trailer?
That second one goes into a fair bit of detail as to how it is reform. And it is. Is it enough? No. But it is a step in the right direction, and was negotiated, in part, with some of the strictest anti-surveillance folks I know.
Anyways... It does not matter what reforms are done, maybe you have not noticed the difficulty involved with a citizen ,whom has been screwed by Law Enforcement doing what-ever-the-fuck-they-want, getting actual redress from their rights being violated. For every article you read where someone did win, there are at least 10 others where they failed or the citizens was drowned out in the crowd.
You realize we *write* those articles all the time. And I still say USA Freedom was a win.
This administration has made it clear, they will just do exactly whatever the fuck they want regardless of the law, and you will find that neither left or right gives two motherfucking shits about it. The only thing the so called "Freedom Act" is further codify that their fucked version of law is perfectly fine!
No offense, but that's bullshit. The administration has not "done exactly whatever the fuck they want regardless of the law..." They HAVE absolutely *twisted* the law as much as they possibly can, but they always have at least a very, very stretched interpretation for how they're within the law.
The USA Freedom Act, for the most part, was written *with that in mind* and to *limit* the ability of the intelligence community to secretly reinterpret it.
Unless the latest revisions/extensions to the Patriot Act explicitly stated that the expiration would result in a reversion to the pre-Patriot USC (vs. the expired provisions just being no longer effective), I don't think any court is going to read the law like that, especially since congressional intent in this case could not be any more clear.
Congressional Research Service claims that yes, it reverts to pre-PATRIOT: