Anyone here drive for Uber? Anyone here drive for Uber after giving up driving for an entrenched cab company somewhre? Anyone here ever even heard a story about such a cab driver?
Yup. Quite a few times actually. I've had a few Uber (and Lyft) drivers who used to drive cabs and then realized that using these platforms was a much better deal. Often it's because they no longer have to work for a big cab company, but can control their own setup.
Nice to see that real people, not monolithic studios, are the ones who help in the creation of movies.
This is news to you? That seems weird. I don't think anyone denies that. But trumpeting in this disingenuous ads doesn't help anything.
The process is far more than using just a camera to record images and sounds, and then editing with some software tools.
Look at that strawman standing there! Oh look, you tried to make its arms move. How cute.
Frankly, I rather doubt there is anything the movie industry could do to satisfy the deep seated animus regularly exhibited here short of totally disclaiming and abandoning reliance upon the longstanding body of law we refer to as copyright law.
What makes you say that? We've seen that the music industry is coming around, and when they embrace providing music the way fans want, piracy rates drop precipitously. Same thing could happen for movies if the MPAA finally got its act together.
Besides, I find it amusing that you have so little business or creative knowledge that you insist nothing can be done. Thank goodness you don't run a studio. It's too bad that many studio heads do seem to have that same opinion as you, though. Thankfully, we're starting to see more Hollywood folks understanding this though. Changes are coming... and those with obsolete ideas won't survive the changes. Good riddance.
And yet you think Google is going to steal your idea? That's funny.
Look: the idea is meaningless. Nearly all innovation comes from the execution, not the idea. The struggle is that you *want* people to copy the idea because it means there's a market. And if you know it best, then you'll succeed.
Get to market, and win that way. Let's see if you can do it. From everything you've said to date, I doubt it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obvious when you think about it.
Ah. Didn't realize it was you.
I've answered your questions repeatedly and you just move the goalposts and do what you did above -- conflate issues, misrepresent what I said, set up strawmen and flat out lie about me.
I've answered your questions and played your games. I told you why I stopped doing so.
So, I will amend my statement above: for everyone but you, feel free to ask questions. For you: I've answered your questions and you became an asshole and threw temper tantrums. I should have realized it was you from the conflation of ideas, the false statements and the ad hominems. And, now, of course, from the failure to apologize for that above and the resorting to the bullshit questions I've already responded to in the past.
Grow up, dude. Life's too short to act like you do.
1. Increase patent quality requirements - Mr. Masnick and Khanna - have you been an inventor and spent time pouring a rejection of your patent application and have you see how liberally patent Examiners reject patents? If so, and you didn't have greatly difficulty getting your patent approved, then you are a very lucky man. The standards are already quite high.
Those are not high standards. Plus, we've detailed many crap patents that got approved.
2. Make patent applications accessible and require them to actually teach - Mr. Masnick and Khanna , nearly all patents are published 18 months after filing, and some are published w/in a few months at the request of the applicant. Most patents already teach quite a bit, but the patents are written a rather precise grammar and syntax because infringers have in the past been able to convince judges that patents written like articles in technical journals are imprecise.
In the tech world they almost never teach anything. I spend my time with tons of engineers. They *laugh* at the idea they'd ever look at a patent to teach anything. And, yes, the law requires the 18 month publication, but Khanna is suggesting even that is too long.
3. Reduce or eliminate business method and design patents. Mr. Masnick and Khanna - the Alice decision about one year ago has completely invalidated business method patents. You can read up on the effect that the Alice decision has had, but the decision is so encompassing that the Patent Office is even rejecting applications for drugs as being improper subject for a patent.
We've written extensively on the Alice decision and its impact. And, yes, it has helped deal with many business method patents, but it hardly "completely invalidated business method patents." That's simply wrong, since you can see business method patents still being approved today.
4. Create an independent invention defense. Mr Masnick and Khanna - are either of you familiar with the competition between Elisha Grey and Alexander Bell? They had indendent invention around the same time, are you really willing to say the the telephone was obvious in 1876 ? Nearly everyone thinks the telephone was genius, even though 2 people thought of it at around the same time. You are very far out of the mainstream.
Yes, I've written about that story a few times. Of course, the "myth" of Alexander Graham Bell has grown over time (along with the evidence that he flat out cheated to appear to "beat" Grey to the patent office). But, yes, I think that no patent was deserved there. Do you think it was appropriate that Grey put in all that work and then couldn't even make use of his own work?
5. Loser pays. Mr. Masnick and Khanna, we already have that, please see Supreme Court case Octane Fitness v. Icon Health from April 2014.
We've written extensively about that as well. And, no, you're wrong. What Khanna is asking for -- and what's in the currently proposed patent reform, goes way beyond what Octane Fitness setup, which is merely a lower standard for assigning attorneys' fees, but not making it standard. Big, big difference.
6. Speed up the patent approval and rejection process. Mr. Masnick and Khanna we already have this, it's called Priority Track I process. Costs an extra $1000, but well worth the price.
Or, you know, you could stop approving bogus patents, and it would clear out the docket fast -- and everyone could get equal access to the patent system.
You are (purposely?) conflating two separate issues.
1. Is the overall time from application to rejection/approval -- which takes years. That's too long.
2. The amount of time that an examiner spends looking at a patent. That's way too short.
Now, you might argue that if you change 2 then you necessarily increase 1 -- which is why I actually think that bullet point in Khanna's report is the weakest one. But I think that if you increase patent quality, reject more bad patents, then the number of applications would decrease drastically and you could easily decrease overall time to a decision while increasing the time each examiner spends reviewing a patent.
Oh, and next time, instead of saying "just don't ask him to explain..." maybe just ask me to explain. Or, you know, don't conflate two separate issues and falsely imply I have a contradictory stance.
What people have a problem with is them acting as if they were run by an Objectivist, (most likely because they are!) flouting the law at every opportunity, trampling on the rights of everyone who's not Uber, harming their workers and their customers
Wait, what? If their workers and customers were being harmed, they have many, many, many other options for them. Especially the workers. So why do they keep signing up more and more people to drive for them?
A friend of mine -- just yesterday -- went to the inspection center in Silicon Valley to get certified for Uber and was told to come back another day because the wait would be hours. For people getting "exploited" they sure seem to be eager to sign up...
Mason, you're being really foolish if you really believe those regulations protect people, rather than protect against competition.
Totally agree with this article, but I think there's some confusion about the term that changed: the Canadian copyright term for sound recordings was 50 years from publication, not from the death of the author, and now it's 70 years from publication.
That's exactly what the article says. The only time it mentions life + 70 is in describing a separate aspect of copyright (for songwriters not recordings).
Re: Re: Re: How EXACTLY does the comment by " JustShutUpAndObey" get the "First Word" linkage above when that person has no visible profile?
I don't remember Techdirt ever proclaiming the highlights section to be organically produced. Now, if it did, that would be misleading. but it never did. In fact it was somewhere on Techdirt that I remember it explaining what the highlight section is and how it gets selected. I'm sure you read it from the same place I did. So the blog is being transparent about it.
It's explained in lots of places INCLUDING if you click on the little question mark in the upper right hand corner of the highlighted comment itself.
If you're a Techdirt Insider you get a certain number of "first word/last word" credits each month that you can allocate to any comment you want. I don't even get to see who uses the credits, so I have no clue how that one was chosen, but someone with credits chose to highlight it.
Yet the US government is set to transfer ownership of the DNS root to them in September, and nobody's doing anything to stop it.
I don't have as big a problem with that as some because the alternatives are even worse. And it's not really "transferring" ownership, it's just making explicit what has really been the case for a while.
Secondly, Swift receives zero royalties from any streaming service. This should be obvious, but it's not. Her label will get the royalties, and the label is who will cut her a check.
That's not fair, because in this case, Swift owns a big chunk of her own label. So, in her case, she absolutely does make money.
Note the situation change now. Twice now, Taylor has attacked the wrong source of revenue. If anything, she should be calling out her label for allowing this, not Apple. Apple has nothing to do with this other than having to pay up front costs to license the music.
That's also incorrect. She hasn't been calling out the low royalty rates (which is what you imply). She's called out offering any streaming service for free and/or not paying for the trial period. And, again, she owns her label. So your argument does not make sense here.
Taylor Swift is the female version of Lars Ulrich.
I don't think that's accurate either.
Again, there's a lot of nuance here. Leaping to generalizations that aren't accurate doesn't help.
Interesting. What in this post involves buffoonery? I wrote a serious post raising serious issues and then responded to you seriously as well. If you think I was acting like a buffoon please let me know where and how. Thanks.
Hey Google- Masnick guesses it's ok to pull revenge porn, but please don't touch his beloved pirate sites, mkay? We need to keep screwing over artists, after all.
As per usual, you misrepresent what is happening and what I said. You do this so frequently, it's almost like you're doing it on purpose, you know?
1. I didn't say it was "ok." I said I worried about how this would lead to more censorship, in the same way that over aggressive copyright claims do.
2. They're doing the exact same thing they've always done concerning copyrighted content, so you pretending I'm saying they're doing something different is just... wrong. Why are you always so wrong?
3. They're not pulling down entire sites with this, but they ARE downranking sites that get lots of DMCA notices. So have no fear, Google is still treating "pirate sites" worse than revenge porn sites.
4. As I've explained to you, I don't download/upload infringing works and never have. I have no "love" for pirate sites. But I do worry about the consequences of censorship -- which is seen all the time by abuse of copyright law.
5. The whole "screwing over artists" thing is ridiculous. I regularly happily highlight artists who have figured out how to thrive with these new tools and services -- many of whom were "screwed over" by the old system. I have no desire to screw over artists. Quite the opposite. I want them to stop acting like you do, pretending you're a victim when the opportunities are right there in front of you. Why you refuse to do anything about it just seems strange.
I recognize that you have no desire to understand the nuances of the debate, but at least make sure you're making accurate statements rather than lying.
I've asked you in the past to discuss these things, and I usually get back insults. I expect the same here.
These are serious and complicated issues and your unwillingness to even understand the basics after all these years is bizarre.
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.