Also calling shenanigans here. When I was in Drivers' Ed they said the exact opposite: driving/racing games cannot prepare you for the experience of real driving, and in fact the things you'd "learn" from them are counterproductive.
For example, in a video game, you have one screen, directly in front of you. While driving, you have six focus points you need to be aware of: in front of you, straight behind you, your two rear view mirrors, and your two blind spots that can only be seen reliably by looking over your shoulders. Checking all of these points except the first two (with your rearview mirror) requires some degree of head movement.
The only way to make a "realistic driving simulator" would be to put it in a car-shaped arcade chassis. But even that still wouldn't provide the experience of the force of acceleration that's often your first clue that you're turning or braking too hard. (The term "gut feeling" applies very literally here. If you feel movement on the outside of your body moving against the seats, you're probably fine. Skin is very sensitive, afterall. But if you feel a g-force tugging at your guts, you're getting into dangerous territory.)
While I actually don't recall Lessig ever actually saying that, the larger point stands.
“Fair use” is a defense; you have to be able to use the material in a way that creates a copyright question before you get to play your defense.
The first Industrial Revolution was kicked off by two major inventions: Eli Whitney's cotton gin, and Benjamin Huntsman's steelmaking process. Huntsman declined to patent it, preferring to go the old-fashioned route of keeping it a secret, until a rival managed to copy the technique through what we would call "corporate espionage" today. (Fat lot of good trade secrets did for him!) Huntsman's process turned steel from an expensive luxury to an expensive commodity, and people started using it for expensive stuff.
The second Industrial Revolution, the one which, as I stated above, gave us the modern world, was fueled by the Bessemer Converter, which was far more efficient than the Huntsman process and turned steel from an expensive commodity into a cheap commodity, allowing people to use it for everyday stuff, and the rest is history.
It's not a coincidence that almost immediately after Bessemer's patent expired, placing the Bessemer Converter technology in the public domain, a mechanical engineer by the name of Karl Benz got the wild idea of making a steam engine significantly smaller by taking out the boiler and putting the combustion chamber inside the piston, then mounting the whole thing on a carriage. (If the name Benz sounds familiar, it's because his idea was wildly successful, and the company he founded to produce and market his invention eventually merged with its competitor, Daimler, whose most popular model was called Mercedes.) This would never have happened without easy access to cheap steel.
As for the Coca-Cola "secret recipe", it hasn't been secret for a long time. (Just Google it if you don't believe me.) Its supposed secrecy, like that of KFC's "the Colonel's original recipe", is a joke. The secret ingredient that gives it its subtly unique taste comes from coca leaf with the cocaine processed out. For obvious reasons, the US government doesn't want people importing and making consumer products out of coca leaf, but Coca-Cola is such a massive and wealthy company that they're able to get the laws bent in their favor for this one specific exception, and that's why no one copies their "secret" recipe.
Yes, the problem that patents were created to solve was that far too often, someone who came up with a useful new thing would try to keep it secret to enjoy the benefits of exclusivity, and succeed too well: The information would die with them.
To solve this problem, the British government invented a system that would grant the benefits of exclusivity, with legal protection, in exchange for publishing the details of the new invention, to ensure that it couldn't be lost.
For example, steel has been around pretty much forever. The oldest known samples date back to ~1400 BC. It's been discovered and lost and rediscovered and lost again countless times throughout the ages. But it's not until the British patent system got ahold of Henry Bessemer's steelmaking system and released it into the public domain that we got the Industrial Revolution (fueled by widespread availability of cheap steel) and the modern age. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that trade secrets literally held back the progress of civilization by 3000 years, but that was definitely a major component of it!
As I've said before, "trade secrets" are a concept with zero legitimacy, which have long been recognized as harmful to society. How harmful? Consider this: everyone who's been reading Techdirt for any length of time should be acutely aware of the many problems caused by the patent system. Well, trade secrets are literally the problem that patents were invented to solve.
Unfortunately, they neglected to actually officially kill off trade secrets when they invented patents. And so stupid crap like this keeps happening.
In some ways, this lines up with something I noted in my 'Brittle Grip' series of posts: growing calls from the extremely rich to not only be able to use their money without limit to shape the political process but to do so anonymously to avoid being "intimidated" or "vilified".
That is not something that capitalists believe; that is something that Objectivists believe. (And, sure enough, if you look at the FAQ link at the top of the linked website, you find a quote by Ayn Rand featured prominently.) Despite several decades of Rand and her disciples' self-serving attempts to rewrite history, actual capitalism, as described by Adam Smith, has little to nothing to do with Objectivism.
Read The Wealth of Nations sometime and ask yourself, each time it teaches some principle, "would the people who loudly defend 'capitalism' and condemn 'socialism' today support or condemn this principle?" You'd be surprised how often the answer is "condemn."
Objectivism is a hijacking of capitalism, twisting it to serve evil purposes, and it should not be considered actual capitalism any more than, (just to give one obvious example off the top of my head,) the KKK should be considered actual Christianity.
This is simply not true. I've been able to stream Star Wars and Marvel content from Amazon for years now.
But a lawsuit against an online publication solely out of vindictiveness (even if his hatred of the publication is for perfectly valid reasons) is a terrible, terrible idea that seems to go against his supposed libertarian views. It's also just petty and vindictive, and only cements in the misleading idea that Silicon Valley is full of ego-maniacal billionaires for whom the ends always justify the means.
That just pushes the problem back a step: where does their salary (the money in "their own pockets") come from?
Ethics can't be "taught"
People are either ethical or they aren't.
That's simply not true. Lawrence Lessig famously likes to say that, but he's wrong. Fair use is the rights of the public to make use of public culture; copyright is a set of temporary exceptions to those rights, carved out in the name of encouraging the further development of culture. Calling fair use "an exception to copyright" is putting the cart before the horse.
Precisely. "Contempt for the public" should be a given when dealing with a Clinton minion.
Inky the octopus escaped from the National Aquarium of New Zealand less than a year ago -- and no one knows exactly how he did it.
it's no coincidence that a review it wanted removed badly enough it sent reps to Narey's house has now been destroyed by a scraper site doing double duty as a half-assed reputation management service.
I should hope so, in this case!
I have personally executed the NIT on a computer under my control and observed that it did not make any changes to the security settings on my computer or otherwise render it more vulnerable to intrusion than it already was. Additionally, it did not “infect” my computer or leave any residual malware on my computer.
Seems to me they've got a pretty good case for promissory estoppel by this point, actually.
And there's the problem: Casey Dienel has a poor understanding of the English language, as she seems to be under the impression that "creative control" somehow applies to stuff that happens after the creating has already occurred.