No, like the AC above you, you're thinking of the early-80s NRA - the NRA I was a member of growing up, the NRA from when they were actually a group promoting responsible gun ownership, the NRA from before they let their lobbyist take over the organization. Today's NRA is a corrupt shadow of that organization that exists for no other reason than to perpetuate its own power.
Which is a shame, because this is a time we NEED the NRA of the 60s and 70s.
Right, because the ONLY CHOICES in this country are to stand at one extreme or the other. Jesus christ, with you people...
And actually, no. I can honestly say that - as someone interested in the issue, I could not name one major voice on the gun control side of the issue. Who would you consider the "loudest voices"? And what have they said as insane as Lapierre's paranoid rants in *2016* that, trust him, Obama was just waiting for the right minute to finally come and take away your guns?
Believing in freedom of speech does not require me to agree with him. And if you look at this and think, "Oh, distributing computer code to 3-d print an illegal firearm? That's a cut and dried first amendment case, there's nothing complex or nuanced about it" then I honestly don't think we're sharing enough basic facts to have a conversation.
But I'm sure it's easier to attack my belief in free speech than to make an actual argument.
Gun laws are mostly a total mess because the gun manufacturer lobbyists, led by the NRA, have convinced gun owners that it is the lowest form of treason to even THINK the word "regulation." As a result, when gun laws get passed, guess who isn't at the table? People who are passionate about guns. The people who are at the table - AT BEST - are people like me, who shot a little at summer camp as a kid but who frankly knows nothing. the NRA - which was a good organization, when I was a kid, but which is the definition of Washington corruption now - has made it so that the people who taught me what little I know, as a kid, now just want to sit back and make fun of people who don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine, rather than sitting down and talking about it.
It really makes me sad. I think in a vacuum, I'd be much more on the side of gun rights than regulation. But when the loudest pro gun voices are Wayne Lapierre and Cody Wilson, well, I know if I'm going to take a stand, it's not going to be with them.
Part of the problem is that Cody Wilson is his own worst advocate. I'm pretty on the fence about whether what he's doing should be okay - but every time I listen to him spouting off his juvenile, in-your-face need to stick it to the man, regardless of the consequences, I get more and more firmly into the "shut him down" camp.
I alluded to this in an earlier comment - we let trade secrets be protected by law basically simple efficiency. This kind of thing happens rarely; the security required to stop it would be expensive and intrusive. Rather than ten thousand companies locking their documents in safes and searching their employees twice a day, we solve the problem by making this kind of almost-theft illegal.
If it were legal, I could break into Google's labs, photocopy all their documents, sell them to Uber for fifty million (five hundred in this case) and do six months for breaking and entering if I got caught. That encourages corporate espionage. Heck, I'll take that deal.
I think the reason it becomes a confusing area of law is because a lot of companies misuse or, by claiming things are trade secrets which are not.
You certainly can win, and I didn't say it sounds like you're shilling for Uber. It sounds like you clearly appreciate Uber for their impressive, industry disrupting technology, and it seems - based on my perception and that of others in this thread - that causes you to turn something of a blind eye to the incredibly unsavory things the corporate side of the company does. You could, when you write about Uber, consider whether your viewpoint is well supported and if you're letting your biases trump other concerns.
It has to be at least a LITTLE bit of a red flag to you that you've responded so many times in this comment thread. And some of the comments are the typical Techdirt-bashing that comes up in every thread, but I think there are a lot coming from the same angle as me - people who appreciate the hell out of what you do and who feel your position in this particular piece is really weird.
You talk a lot about companies respecting their audiences and their communities. I think this is one time you should seriously listen to what we are saying.
Because it kind of seems like you're saying that patents shouldn't exist at all.
I'm hardly a patent maximalist; I agree with the point of view that says the vast number of patents I see should not exist. But some clearly should, because actual invention should be rewarded. We want more of it, and patents are one possible way to encourage it. (And some smart people recognize that their patent will make them more money if they don't exercise it than if they do.)
But it seems like you're making an analogy between copying a song or TV show - IE a widely distributed piece of art - and copying an unpublished, literally secret invention a company hasn't yet released. I *AGREE* with the "well, what have you lost?" argument when it comes to copying the song. But in this case, the "what have you lost?" argument is so blindingly obvious - the first mover advantage is enormous and this is a cutting-edge tech field - that it seems weird to me that you're falling back on "But it's also not "stealing." All of the information is still retained by Waymo." that it seems to me like all you're doing is falling back on semantics about the word stealing. Yes, you're absolutely correct, that no unique physical object was removed from Waymo's premises. But in the great scope of things, this is much closer to the traditional definition of "stealing" than what we, you, me, and our community, generally object to when the RIAA and MPAA call downloading a movie theft.
I know you get accused of shilling for companies a lot... from my point of view, that's clearly not true. But you do demonstrate this weird, WEIRD love for Uber that makes you overlook a ton of the crappy things they do. Like buying stolen plans from Google to bootstrap their own effort. This is literally the heartland of what intellectual property and trade secret protections exist for. The reasons those laws exist is because they're EFFICIENT - it is SO much better to protect trade secrets with laws than through the level of complete security paranoia you'd need if you knew a rival could just swipe the plans to what you're working on with no repercussions. And I feel like you spend so much more time than me thinking about this stuff, and the position you're taking is so weird - and just doesn't seem well-supported from someone who can almost ALWAYS support his points, even when I disagree with them.
So I'm just going to call it your Uber-blindness, and then call it a day. But I really, really think you need to rethink your point - or at least rewrite the article so it comes across better.
Or just stop writing articles about anything to do with Uber, they rarely come across as your best.
Anne Hobson works for a joint called R Street, a think tank which promotes transparency. I mean, for everyone but themselves, because they're a c(3), so there's no way to tell if the companies she is defending paid for this article... But I think we can take a reasonable guess. (I actually kind of love the fact that they tout their transparency: here! Look at our last three tax returns! Sure. There's nothing actually IN then, but we don't really expect people to download them, just to see that have them up and respect our transparency...)
The Mercatus Center, where Christopher Koopman works, at least has an admirable policy against its scholars doing work for hire and against anything which smacks of conflict of interest. Of course, they're ALSO a 501c(3), so... Trust and don't verify?
I have long thought there is a special place in hell reserved for people who make arguments so poorly that people who ostensibly support them walk away LESS in favor of their position. If I'm right you two are going there.
The arguments you make are so weak, so removed from anything even close to reality, that you come off as nothing but industry shills scraping the barrel to try to get people riled up. Admittedly what you're saying seems like a good, solid example of modern economic theory, which I hope says something about modern economic theory.
Here's one hint, I'll leave the dozen others as an exercise for the reader: "scalping is good because it lets rich people go to see Hamilton wherever they want" is NOT a winning argument. I'm guessing the people you hang out with loved it, most people won't.
Again, I started out reading this saying "ugh, perfect, the government wants to regulate tech at the behest of industry again." I came away from this article thinking that might not be a terrible idea. Take what you will from that.
Perhaps not explicitly. But Julian Assange IS. And the tool - the tool that I lauded when it came out, the tool that I volunteered to do legal work for - is so corrupted from its original mission by a founder with an ego that rivals Trump's that it is worse than useless. It trades on its reputation to be a propaganda tool, and a tool to feed Assange's hunger for publicity. Honestly, I'm not that sure I see the difference between the work Wikileaks is doing and the work James O'Keefe is doing.
The worst part is, by turning his brilliant innovation into what it is now, Assange is destroying whatever GOOD work it could potentially do in the future. I no longer have any interest in Wikileaks. It is an archetypical organization corrupted by its success.
Luckily, there are now many, many other tools that do the same thing. Put Wikileaks on the longboat and light the torch. It did its work; it forged the path for others. It's dead. Mourn it, but don't pretend it's still alive.
I'm a big fan of speech, even speech I don't like. I'm not a fan of vindictive billionaires being able to use the US court system to reshape the media landscape to their liking. And I'm especially not a fan of the precedent this sets for OTHER billionaires who get butt-hurt by something a mean, nasty tabloid says about them. Or the mean, nasty New York Times.
If Thiel had just done the honorable thing and BOUGHT GAWKER - which would not be a major outlay based on his estimated net worth - that would have been one thing and easy to laugh off, although still disturbing. But doing it on the cheap - using OUR court system - is sickening.
Okay, so there - those are my reasons. What are yours?
Yes, I'm totally sure that if the US changed it's laws to lower the business tax rate - already incredibly low - NO OTHER COUNTRY would ever think of lowering THEIR tax rate to compete. This definitely wouldn't be a race to the bottom, that would end with America worse off than it is.
that Uber doesn't offer a great service. They've got great tech and make something that was really annoying vastly more pleasant.
Now, if only they hadn't attached that great tech to a business arm which basically said "Okay, we're going to ignore every law and regulation known to man, and hopefully by the time anyone notices us we'll be big enough that they won't be able to do anything."
"Rabble rabble rabble! X is wrong! You should never do X, you evil so-and-so!"
"Okay, I've listened to you guys and now no longer support X."
"You are a terrible person for changing your position!"
I am so sick of this.
You know what? When I'm against a politician's position, I WANT them to change it. And if they think that changing their position will lead to being lambasted for that on TOP of being attacked for their original position - with no credit given for the new position - then what reason could they possibly have to change? And if that's the case, you should admit it as well - you were just arguing so that people would hear how smart you were. Not because you were actually trying to accomplish anything.
I DON'T CARE if in her heart of hearts Clinton believes in the TPP as long as she stands against it. I just DO NOT CARE. Her actions are what are relevant. Yes, editing the book is weird and plays into a certain narrative about clinton, and YES, she would be better served by a forward which said "Hey, the earlier version of the book contained a bunch of info that I don't agree with, so rather than publish a new version of a book that misstates my current positions I've edited it as follows."
But you know what? I just don't care that much. And I'm sick of the Clinton Outrage Brigade which constantly puts me in a position like this, where I'm standing up for a woman that I frankly can't stand, because the attacks on her are so ridiculous.
Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich suggested reviving the House Un-American Activities Commission today. But really. Hillary Clinton Is Not Pure Enough is definitely the fight you need to be fighting.
I'm sorry, why is that ridiculous? Because I don't see it.
The simple fact is, it's MY medical information. *I* am allowed to share it if I want. *YOU* - the person I entrust it to, because as a society we WANT people to trust their doctors so the doctors can do their jobs - are *NOT* allowed to, except to the minimum extent necessary for you to do the job I'm paying you to do. Simple, straightforward rule.
I wish this rule were in place in other areas of my life. My internet data, my cellular location data, etc, etc - IT'S NOT YOUR DATA. I let you use it because in order to [have cell service, use the internet] I have no choice.
The idea that you want to WEAKEN this minimal protection - that you seem to think that just because I hurt a doctor's feelings he should be able to share something of mine... I honestly don't know how that makes sense to you. But here's the simplest angle possible - when you go to the doctor, do you really want to have to think about everything you're saying and not saying - to give the doctor the minimal information possible, maybe missing something important, because you don't want the doctor to be able to tell people in the future?
No. Of course not. That makes no sense. So the rule is, doctors keep their mouths shut, no matter what, even if someone hurts their feelings. Making that rule more complicated just doesn't make any sense. Don't believe me? Well, if you scroll up a bit, there's a whole article about a bunch of doctors who couldn't even follow that really, really simple rule...
I'm really surprised that this is an issue at all. I would have assumed that when you're someone as fantastically wealthy as James, who literally makes his living licensing the depiction of his body, that you don't get a tattoo without signing a contract with the artist. I would further assume that somewhere in very-rich-people-land there's an echelon of tattoo artists who are familiar with these issues and SIMILARLY want to work out this kind of stuff beforehand, because "I do tattoos for LeBron James" seems like something which is probably worth a LOT of money.
Further further, even if I'm wrong (which I obviously am) how can a long-shot suit worth a million bucks be worth it for these people? Let's say they settle with Take Two for some reasonable fraction of that - they're still trading off any possibility of future business.
Then again, a search for "solid oak sketches" turns up nothing but references to this (and another) suit... no website. Maybe they did the tattoos a long time ago, before James became famous or something...