I've always thought the government jihad in the US against internet gambling was more about protecting brick and mortar gambling operations in the US and less about protecting the public. The Indian gambling lobbyists in Minnesota must be powerful.
Before morphing into a web entrepreneur, I was a lawyer so it was a difficult conversion in my thinking to reach a point where I agree with the idea suggested by this article. My company wasted valuable resources going after a patent that, if granted, would have taken gobs of money to defend. The lawyers win in the end. The companies just rack up patent prosecution and litigation expenses. The whole process is a scam.
Interesting case but the fact that this is a default judgment does not tell us much about how the courts shall view these sorts of copyright infringement claims. A "default judgment" is one where the defendant entered no response at all. That means all allegations of the complaint are taken as true and no potential defense (such as fair use) is considered by the court.
What value do brick and mortar newspapers bring to society beyond employing lots of people? That's what they have to ask themselves. Many papers are blatant government shills. They no longer act as a check and balance upon our government. The blogs and online journals have taken that over. What do they do of value? I'm missing it.
The survey does not lie. Which is why I was surprised to read today about a new group of news organizations who are launching a pay online news site. Don't these people do marketing surveys before launching something like this?
http://www.betanews.com/article/How-much-would-you-pay-for-news-A-new-coalition-seeks-an-answer/1239835014
It's very difficult to feel any sympathy for Comcast; however, I was struck the cahones of this dude, upon getting caught stealing bandwidth, is going to court to argue that his theft was authorized as a standard business practice. Who knows, the business operates today, perhaps he is right. Everybody is stealing from everybody else so what's the beef?
I agree with the sentiment of your article Mike but I think the industry executives believe DRM is in their best interest for a reason completely different than file sharing. When individuals lacked the ability to make copies of music they purchased, you the consumer had to buy a new album when the vinyl wore out or one of your drunk buddies sat on it or it got scratched, etc. I can't tell how many times I bought the Beatles white album. Not so in the digital age. All your music is stored electronically so you just burn a new disk when one of your disks is damaged. And that has always pissed off the industry. They think they have the right to require you to purchase the same movie, album, video game over and over again. That is what DRM is all about IMHO.
Thanks for reminding us of that point (the concern that Google lacked a business model). If you have users in an online business, money will follow. The question is how much money? How skilled are the managers at monetizing their traffic? Twitter has dropped the ball. I think that lies at the feet of the people running Twitter for they certainly have had the opportunity to generate revenue but have not focused on same.
One historical comment on the Google situation. Those who worked in the web search field in 2000 knew there definitely existed a successful business model for search engines--the old goto.com. This model was essentially copied and improved by google with adsense. Goto.com, for some unknown reason, changed their name to overture and then were bought out by yahoo. The yahoo paid placement for search and text ads was born out of overture's system.
I love google street view. Yesterday I was on a local message board for St. Louis, MO discussing good mexican restaurants. There is a restaurant on Cherokee street that I always go to but could not remember the name nor street address. No problem, took a virtual ride down Cherokee with google street view and read the name of the place off of the front awning.
I just don't understand how or why a person feels there is an invasion of privacy for anything visible from the street at street level? If you are parading naked before a window facing the street, whose fault is it when your picture gets snapped by the "street view" van?
Bob and Jay, repeat after me, entertainment is a commodity bought and sold like any other commodity. I'll excuse Mr. Geldof for the misguided belief that rock & roll music classifies as a higher artistic pursuit, more than mere entertainment. I can at least see how you deluded yourself. But Mr. Leno, please, you are a comic! How can a comic take oneself so seriously?
From one outside the field, what these scientists are doing looks like research paper spam ... repackaging old data and pawning it off to a publication as new research. Why? Because research scientists / university professors are under great pressure to publish. The number of times and how recently matters. These guys know what they did is wrong. It's Cramer trying feebly to defend himself against John Stewart ... ain't gonna work.
I'm not sure your point is historically correct:
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6774.cfm
Secondly, the identity of the named plaintiff is meaningless. What matters is who financed and orchestrated the litigation. Does anyone really believe it was NOT the industry associations?
Even the musicians themselves are starting to see the stupidity of the RIAA approach. Check out what Nine Inch Nails is doing with their latest album, brilliant!
http://lawvibe.com/how-musicians-are-causing-copyright-law-controversy/
my comment got cut off it should have read--
""but as soon as copyright came into play, he drastically slowed down his production of new works, since he could live off the royalties from older works instead"
That's one of hell of a point! The argument in favor of stronger copyright laws (and intellectual property protection in general) has always been that they promote innovation and creation. In fact, the point is taken as gospel by the courts. Any evidence that destroys this as myth is very important IMHO.
>>but as soon as copyright came into play, he drastically slowed down his production of new works, since he could live off the royalties from older works instead
Technology really does have the capability to right wrongs and end injustice. Very happy to hear that the text book thugs are being reigned in. We got raped in law school and for what? A collection of court opinions for which the text book company lacked copyright ownership? Just insane.
Hulu put the content out there for free and is scrambling like made to monetize it. I feel for hulu ... but I'd also like to boxee or some similar service to succeed because I hate my cable company (charter). They might just push me over the edge and I'll cancel them then resort to watching reruns of all of my shows on the tv through an internet hookup. This is going to happen eventually. If I were Hulu, I'd go all in and be part of a boxee solution rather than fight it.
Good luck with interview. Craig's list is nothing more than a classified ad. Are classified ads responsible for prostitution? No. The girls walk the streets or do whatever they need to do to perform their job. It makes much more sense from a public policy perspective that prostitution be regulated and contained to designated red light districts. Government just needs to pull its head out and deal with the real world as it exists (as opposed to the Land of Oz where jailing a few prostitutes and johns makes the problem go away).
I personally find the MSM's arguments against internet news sources pathetic. Yes, revenues are drying up for their industry. But that's their own fault because they deliver a shitty product riddled with propaganda. Operation Mockingbird still lives (see Judith Miller). Thank the gods for alternative sources of news. The MSM deserves all the pain it feels.
contrarian
As much as I hate to agree with the position of any organization with the word "Fox" in their name, I too would have been mightily pissed had an unfinished version of the movie leaked. Why? Because people start making judgments (and posting those judgments) based upon an unfinished product. In this case, legitimate reviewers started blasting the movie based on the unfinished version. That's very damaging to the makers of Wolverine.
I am in favor of cutting way back on the reach of copyright laws but the Woverine episode just isn't a very good example to make the case.