eclecticdave 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (148) comment rss

  • On the post: Patent Reform Bill Reintroduced; More Of The Same

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2009 @ 01:09pm

    Re: Re: Patent the Device not the software

    So "Microsoft Word running on a PC", "Microsoft Excel running on a PC", "Internet Explorer running on a PC" are all separate patents in your view? Well they probably are currently - but I thought we were discussing reform here?

    I suggest that the terms "specialised" and "integral component" don't apply to these examples in the same way that they do to my earlier examples.

    I accept that it may be difficult to figure out where to draw the line and plenty of grey area for the courts to play in, but there is a potential viable approach here IMO.

  • On the post: Politician Wants Google To Blur Street View Images Of Buildings; Next Up: Blurring Reality

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2009 @ 12:32pm

    Re: Thomas Jefferson

    Benjamin Franklin I think you'll find ...

  • On the post: Patent Reform Bill Reintroduced; More Of The Same

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2009 @ 10:52am

    Patent the Device not the software

    I can see the argument for patenting specialised devices (cellphones, abs brakes etc) that happen to have software as an integral component.

    I don't think software in isolation needs patent protection however.

  • On the post: Corey Smith Clarification: Not $4.2 Million; Just $4 Million

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2009 @ 06:10am

    Re: What this PROVES?

    ... it should be the choice of the musician.

    Norm, there is a very simple way you can make absolutely sure you retain absolute control over your music. Play it in the privacy of your own basement and never, ever let anyone else listen to it!

    Think of it like a secret. Let's say you have a secret about yourself that you have never told anyone else. As long as it says that way you have full control over that information. The moment you confide in someone else, you lose some control over that information. Hopefully you gain something in return, perhaps mutual trust or friendship.

    Music works the same way. You can *choose* to retain full control by not releasing it. Alternatively you can *choose* to relinquish some of that control in return for money or some other gain. Think of it not in terms of selling the music, but in terms of selling the *control*.

    It's always been this way really. When you sell your house or your car, it's always really about selling your control over that property - the property itself is just an inert object! Selling music works in exactly the same way.

  • On the post: EFF Explains Why You Should Be Allowed To Sell Promo CDs

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2009 @ 01:51pm

    No Sale

    Hate to say it but Anon #11 might have a point here.

    When you are given something is there the same legal transfer of ownership as when you are sold something? AIUI this is why you occasionally see things sold for "1 Cent/Penny" (Barings Bank being the most recent example I can think of) - it allows a legally binding bill of sale to be written.

    Of course that still means UMG is suing the wrong bloke. They should surely be suing the original seller rather than the reseller - Augusto can easily make the case that he bought the CDs in good faith, I would have thought.

  • On the post: Monty Python's Meaning Of Free: The Holy Grail Of Massively Increased Sales

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 23 Jan, 2009 @ 11:25am

    Not all of Python content

    While I can't argue that this is a fine selection of clips, it is very far from being all of Monty Python's sketches.

    Whilst this is a good example of someone providing some of their content for free in order to increase sales of the rest, I feel I have to point out it is not an example of someone making all of their content available for free and making money from scarce goods.

  • On the post: Scarcity Is A Bad Thing, So Why Would You Want To Artificially Add Scarcity?

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2008 @ 06:06am

    Re:

    > What I don't understand is why he expects inventors, musicians, movie makers, etc to not charge for their time

    The reason for your lack of understanding is because you
    are completely wrong! Mike has consistently stated that musicians etc should be paid for their time - he merely advocates business models that don't place the emphasis on accumulating that money by trying to sell plastic disks.

  • On the post: Warner Music Pitches Music Tax To Universities: You Pay, We Stop Suing

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2008 @ 07:15am

    Re: A flat fee is already in use... they're called taxes.

    @twinrova

    I actually think I agree with you, up to a point.

    I generally believe that Mike and co has the right approach for the music industry, but I surprise myself and find myself considering a "Music Tax" ... because done right it might just give the recording industry just enough rope to hang themselves.

    Let's run with the idea of a music tax, but let's make it one collected and enforced by the *government* not by the RIAA. The government also controls which musicians get a cut (which means they actually get the money). The RIAA can be given the position of "advisors".

    The RIAA would have difficulty opposing such a plan, since it gives them everything they have ostensibly been lobbying for, but without the control, which they can't admit to being their actual goal.

    In return the RIAA would be legally required to stop suing for copyright infringement, put an end to DRM and publicly support free file sharing.

    With the RIAA's teeth well and truly pulled, musicians will be free to supplement their gov't subsidy using all the business models described here, and in time as governments come and go and the economy changes it may eventually be possible to phase out what will hopefully then be recognised as a obsolete and unnecessary tax.

    Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I know that in diplomacy, just because someone doesn't deserve something, it doesn't mean it can't be in someone else's interest to let them have it (or at least appear to let them have it).

  • On the post: Do Emergency Calls Need More Technology Or More Common Sense?

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 02 Dec, 2008 @ 06:23am

    mobiles that self dial

    Hi,

    I'm in the UK and I've certainly never heard of the '5-key' thing. Definitely should be publicised more.

    AIUI, the reason why silent calls are often ignored in the UK, rather than chased up, is that most mobile phones here are designed to allow the user to dial 999 even if the phone keypad is locked. This has the unfortunate side effect that some models of phone can dial 999 on their own by being jostled in a person's pocket or bag.

  • On the post: You Don't Have To Sell Software

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2008 @ 02:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: open source is a myth, software should cost money, VC business is nuts

    > badge of honor associated with making your open source software also free

    It's got nothing to do with a "badge of honor" it's the simple economics of open source.

    Anyone is welcome to sell open source software for as much money as they can get - no open source license will prevent them from doing so. However since the same license gives all their customers the right to give copies away, one quickly finds the customer base rapidly vanishes.

    Would you buy a product from a market stall if you can plainly see the guy on the next stall is giving away the exact same product?

  • On the post: Washington Post Story Convinces Service Providers To Pull The Plug On Major Spam Enabler

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2008 @ 02:43am

    Re: Not just whack-a-mole

    > The ISPs and hosts are certainly the most equipped party to monitor what is happening on their own networks, they just need the proper incentives to do it.

    Let's see ...

    ISP's monitoring network data to prevent copyright infringment - bad.
    ISP's monitoring network data to prevent spamming - good?

    I fail to see how you can have it both ways.

    While I hate spam as much as anyone else, ISPs should not be required to police their network to prevent illegal activity - not for any reason.

  • On the post: BBC's Magic TV Detector Vans Kept Secret

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2008 @ 05:13am

    Re: Freedom on Information

    I know, I know - RTFA! My bad.

    Apparently the Information Commissioner ruled that it was "in the interest of legitimate licence payers" to not receive information that might lead them to question whether they really need to pay the fee!

    Got to love the logic ;-)

  • On the post: BBC's Magic TV Detector Vans Kept Secret

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2008 @ 05:05am

    Freedom on Information

    Regardless of whether these vans exist or not, does the Beeb have the authority to not release this info?

    I thought a request under the Freedom of Information Act could only be blocked if it's a state secret. Do the Beeb's attempts at licence policing fall under National Security these days?

    (Maybe they're worried there'll be riots if the word gets out detector vans don't exist ;-)

    Anyway, I'm not an expert in radio, but I was under the impression that a directional antenna designed to pick up these tiny signals would have to be quite big, and outside the metal chassis of the vehicle. So unless the Beeb is now using Fibre-glass based Robin Reliants, it's had to see how these detectors could be "hidden".

  • On the post: Is There Still A Big Loophole For Software And Business Method Patents?

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2008 @ 03:41pm

    Mental Arithmetic

    AIUI the ruling excludes from patentability "claimed process[es] where every step may be performed entirely in the human mind".

    Surely this puts some limits on attempts to create "on a computer" patents. Any process that runs on a general purpose computer can also be performed using mental arithmetic given enough time and patience.

    The term "a particular machine or apparatus" is likely to be interpreted by the courts as meaning something custom designed for the application, as this is widely acknowledged as being the intent of the Supreme Court rulings.

    One can hope anyway ;-) Personally I just hope the EU is looking this way as it chooses how to clarify the patentability of software in Europe.

  • On the post: The Uneasy Balance Between Wikipedia And Truth

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2008 @ 03:31pm

    Re: Re:

    Personally, I nearly always say "12th of December 2008".

    But then I live in the UK...

  • On the post: Self Plagiarism And The Creative Process

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2008 @ 04:50am

    Re:

    While I agree that good material does help a mediocre comedian (I'm not calling Mencia mediocre - I've never seen him), I would argue that the success of the best comedians comes from the performance far more than the material.

    Some comedians (Tommy Cooper for example) can tell "Knock-Knock" jokes and make them funny. By the same token a rubbish comedian can easily ruin the funniest joke in the world.

    So if another comedian uses a good comedian's material, that hardly affects the good comedian's success, which does not rely on exclusive material - in fact it could actually help the original comedian - if word gets out that Mencia is reusing material from (say) Peter Kay's act - wouldn't that make you wan#t to see Peter Kay*?

    * Kay is a popular UK comedian - not sure if you've heard of him in the US.

  • On the post: So, This One Time, At Bandcamp, I Made It Easy To Offer Fans New Music

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2008 @ 06:05am

    Re: not really new - but it raises a point

    You might want to check out the "OpenSocial" initiative, which sounds like what you describe. The rub is it's still in development so it's not really ready for sites like Bandcamp to take advantage of it yet.

  • On the post: For Just The Cost Of A (Starbucks) Coffee A Day, You Could Save A Pay Phone Booth…

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 05 Sep, 2008 @ 12:18pm

    Small Villages

    I get the feeling this is purely for the benefit of small villages than anywhere else.

    It sounds as if BT might be planning on phasing out phone boxes entirely, but want to offer the option to small villages to keep their red ones if they feel it contributes to the village charm or community or whatever.

    IIRC some villages successfully campaigned to keep their red boxes when BT started replacing them with the modern type. This could just be BT recognising the same villages might be likely to take action again if their boxes were threatened.

  • On the post: And What If Tangible Goods Become More Abundant?

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2008 @ 06:27pm

    Re: needing to sell something

    > what purpose would restricting someone's access to scarce goods/services serve?

    Your missing the point, I think. When someone restricts access to a good/service they are creating *artificial* scarcity.

    Goods and services that are genuinely scarce aren't that way because of imposed restrictions, they are just naturally scarce.

    For example, your time as a musician, architect, teacher or whatever is scarce. It's scarce not because you make it scarce, it's scarce simply because there are only 24 hours in a day and you can't be in two places at once!

  • On the post: RIAA May Get Its Wish: Pandora Leaning Towards Shutting Down Over Webcasting Royalties

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2008 @ 11:46am

    Web Radio vs Web Site

    AC @6 has a good point. What exactly is RIAA's definition of a "Web Radio station"

    Wikipedia defines it as "a streaming medium that presents listeners with a continuous "stream" of audio over which they have no control, much like traditional broadcast media; in this respect, it is distinct from "on-demand" file serving"

    So if Pandora offered some sort of audience interaction, maybe Last-FM style track skipping, would it be off the hook?

Next >>