I don't know if I'm quite as concerned as Tim is by the idea that 34% of Adults don't know how the ESRB system works.
I wouldn't say I fully understand it myself. I understand the basic principles, and I feel comfortable enough to utilize it proficiently, but I wouldn't be considered an expert about the mechanics behind why one game is rated M and another isn't.
I wonder what the other options were? Was there an option that says "I know enough about it to use it properly"? If so, I would expect a majority of people to select that one.
I like to think that as a Techdirt reader, I am always learning something new. :)
No, they are not monotone, and that is why I am interested. I am especially interested in the reasons behind the change. Are they changing because they learned something? Because they feel less threatened? Because they want the positive publicity they are currently receiving? Maybe all of the above.
Sadly, I doubt either of us can say with certainty what their motivation is.
What I find most interesting is how drastically Jack Daniels has changed it's approach since the last time they were featured here on TechDirt. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/19034518399/how-drunk-would-you-need-to-be-to-confuse-jack-daniels-with-cayman-jack.shtml
"Of course all of this shows a massive misunderstanding of how Google works. The IFPI seems to honestly think that Google employees are making a conscious choice that "let's rank these unauthorized sites higher."
I don't think they misunderstand at this at all. I'm sure that they understand that there is a machine somewhere that is spitting out the responses to their searches.
I would bet that they are misunderstanding the purpose of courts and lawsuits. These things are meant to be a means of achieving justice. Or perhaps they misunderstand the results as an injustice.
"If you want to help make this better, treat Culture like what it is: an anti-rivalrous good that increases in value the more it is used."
I'd like to know how treating Culture like an anti-rivalrous good will make anything better.
It seems like you are saying that if we share Culture, it will stop the RIAA and others from crashing the economy of Culture.
First, I'd like to know what exactly the RIAA can do to our Culture?
Second, I'd like to know how sharing our Culture will prevent whatever it is that they are doing.
Thanks for taking the time to explain things to this Moron. :)
The pictures were taken in Indonesia. I think we have to consider the laws there, instead of U.S. Copyright laws.
But if we do consider U.S. law applicable, then I seem to recall a bit about how naturally occurring phenomena cannot be subject to Patents. It was cited quite a bit when DNA started getting patented. Would a similar condition apply here? Can we consider these pictures to be naturally occurring, since the monkey was just doing what came naturally?
If so, then no copyright can be applied. Someone back me up, or shoot me down here.
Evidence that Patents hold back research? Alright.
What about Myriad using patents to hold back breast cancer research?
What about the Patents on Oil Eating Bacteria, holding back research on ways to utilize them?
What about the company StemCells using patents to stop a Children's Hospital from researching Brain Cancer for 3 years?
How about the concerns about Craig Vetner's pantent for sythetic biology, and the delays it will cause for research?
Or take a look at MPEG-LA's use of patents to hold back an open standard for Video?
Take a look at the Smartphone patent thicket, and see how fast research can be done for improving that industry?
It talked about how there is no such thing as an unbiased algorithm, and about Microsoft saying Google was anti-competitive, and about competition in the search engine space.
But what the article didn't cover was what the supporters of Search Neutrality were actually trying to achieve. He didn't talk about whether their goals had any actual merit.
Personally, I don't think Mike's previous article was very good. I would have liked to see more about why the actual goals of Search Neutrality supporters are not worth putting time and effort into, or what the best way to achieve those goals are.
I think Mike got close to taking some of the wind out of Search Neutrality supporters' sails when he talked about competition in the search industry. But rather than pointing out how greater competition would allow customers to support the search engine that is achieving those goals without regulation, he instead throws out some statistic comparing search engine competition with operating system competition which does nothing to help point out how corruption in search engine results can be dealt with outside of legislation.
Mike, I agree with you. Total Search Neutrality is stupid.
But that isn't what the supporters are asking for, is it?
The supporters of Search Neutrality don't care that Google is trying to give the User what they are looking for. They care that Google might be giving the User what Google wants them to see.
You should write about that, and whether it has any merit, instead of worrying what Scott Cleland says.
Isn't use for educational purposes, such as in a school choir, one of the biggest areas covered by Fair Use?
I would think that because this is a school-sponsored event, the kids' use of the songs fall under Fair Use, and negate the need to seek out permission.
Another very good point. Unless I made a horrible typo in my GPS, I doubt I'd be looking for Harrods in the same location as Hollands.
By the way, welcome to TechDirt, Nick. If you want to reply to a specific comment, you will see a link labeled 'reply to this comment' under each one. That will save you from having to type out re: (topic name) yourself.
I've asked an actual Moron in a Hurry (myself) if I would be confused. The answer is that if I were driving down the road, looking for a sign that says Harrods, had no idea what a Harrods store looked like, and I saw the Hollands sign, I might be confused, and slow down to get a better look. But that would only be because they have a similar length name, and a matching first letter and last 2 letters. But I would realize the mistake before I even parked or got out of the car, and leave to find my proper destination.
34% of Adults
I don't know if I'm quite as concerned as Tim is by the idea that 34% of Adults don't know how the ESRB system works.
I wouldn't say I fully understand it myself. I understand the basic principles, and I feel comfortable enough to utilize it proficiently, but I wouldn't be considered an expert about the mechanics behind why one game is rated M and another isn't.
I wonder what the other options were? Was there an option that says "I know enough about it to use it properly"? If so, I would expect a majority of people to select that one.
Re: Re:
I like to think that as a Techdirt reader, I am always learning something new. :)
No, they are not monotone, and that is why I am interested. I am especially interested in the reasons behind the change. Are they changing because they learned something? Because they feel less threatened? Because they want the positive publicity they are currently receiving? Maybe all of the above.
Sadly, I doubt either of us can say with certainty what their motivation is.
What I find most interesting is how drastically Jack Daniels has changed it's approach since the last time they were featured here on TechDirt. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/19034518399/how-drunk-would-you-need-to-be-to-confuse-jack-daniels-with-cayman-jack.shtml
You misunderstood what they are misunderstanding
"Of course all of this shows a massive misunderstanding of how Google works. The IFPI seems to honestly think that Google employees are making a conscious choice that "let's rank these unauthorized sites higher."
I don't think they misunderstand at this at all. I'm sure that they understand that there is a machine somewhere that is spitting out the responses to their searches.
I would bet that they are misunderstanding the purpose of courts and lawsuits. These things are meant to be a means of achieving justice. Or perhaps they misunderstand the results as an injustice.
Eh
Amusing, but ultimately not relevant to SOPA. This is a domestic site, so it would not be subject to SOPA's influence.
Mastercard?
Just curious, what was the surprise from Mastercard mentioned in the headline? Did I miss it during my reading? I am in a hurry, you know.
Support?
Hi, Nina. Nice article. I have a request though.
"If you want to help make this better, treat Culture like what it is: an anti-rivalrous good that increases in value the more it is used."
I'd like to know how treating Culture like an anti-rivalrous good will make anything better.
It seems like you are saying that if we share Culture, it will stop the RIAA and others from crashing the economy of Culture.
First, I'd like to know what exactly the RIAA can do to our Culture?
Second, I'd like to know how sharing our Culture will prevent whatever it is that they are doing.
Thanks for taking the time to explain things to this Moron. :)
The pictures were taken in Indonesia. I think we have to consider the laws there, instead of U.S. Copyright laws.
But if we do consider U.S. law applicable, then I seem to recall a bit about how naturally occurring phenomena cannot be subject to Patents. It was cited quite a bit when DNA started getting patented. Would a similar condition apply here? Can we consider these pictures to be naturally occurring, since the monkey was just doing what came naturally?
If so, then no copyright can be applied. Someone back me up, or shoot me down here.
IANAL.
The Response?
How will Quackwatch respond to the lawsuit? Are they planning to fight, or are they looking to settle?
Re:
Evidence that Patents hold back research? Alright.
What about Myriad using patents to hold back breast cancer research?
What about the Patents on Oil Eating Bacteria, holding back research on ways to utilize them?
What about the company StemCells using patents to stop a Children's Hospital from researching Brain Cancer for 3 years?
How about the concerns about Craig Vetner's pantent for sythetic biology, and the delays it will cause for research?
Or take a look at MPEG-LA's use of patents to hold back an open standard for Video?
Take a look at the Smartphone patent thicket, and see how fast research can be done for improving that industry?
Re: Re: Cutting through the rhretoric
It talked about how there is no such thing as an unbiased algorithm, and about Microsoft saying Google was anti-competitive, and about competition in the search engine space.
But what the article didn't cover was what the supporters of Search Neutrality were actually trying to achieve. He didn't talk about whether their goals had any actual merit.
Personally, I don't think Mike's previous article was very good. I would have liked to see more about why the actual goals of Search Neutrality supporters are not worth putting time and effort into, or what the best way to achieve those goals are.
I think Mike got close to taking some of the wind out of Search Neutrality supporters' sails when he talked about competition in the search industry. But rather than pointing out how greater competition would allow customers to support the search engine that is achieving those goals without regulation, he instead throws out some statistic comparing search engine competition with operating system competition which does nothing to help point out how corruption in search engine results can be dealt with outside of legislation.
Cutting through the rhretoric
Mike, I agree with you. Total Search Neutrality is stupid.
But that isn't what the supporters are asking for, is it?
The supporters of Search Neutrality don't care that Google is trying to give the User what they are looking for. They care that Google might be giving the User what Google wants them to see.
You should write about that, and whether it has any merit, instead of worrying what Scott Cleland says.
Insulting
Maybe the big-name media outlets have grown too timid to publish something that might be construed as libel.
Re: Re: Fair Use?
Were your H.S. and university just being taking precautions, or was there some legal obligation for those actions?
Re: From wikipedia
Duderino, I think Mike is referring to the characters' use of songs in the fictional world of the show, rather than the actual producers of the show.
Fair Use?
Isn't use for educational purposes, such as in a school choir, one of the biggest areas covered by Fair Use?
I would think that because this is a school-sponsored event, the kids' use of the songs fall under Fair Use, and negate the need to seek out permission.
Re: Which are you asking?
Just exactly what are you trying to imply about me?
Re: re: survey says
Another very good point. Unless I made a horrible typo in my GPS, I doubt I'd be looking for Harrods in the same location as Hollands.
By the way, welcome to TechDirt, Nick. If you want to reply to a specific comment, you will see a link labeled 'reply to this comment' under each one. That will save you from having to type out re: (topic name) yourself.
Take it easy. :)
Survey Says
I've asked an actual Moron in a Hurry (myself) if I would be confused. The answer is that if I were driving down the road, looking for a sign that says Harrods, had no idea what a Harrods store looked like, and I saw the Hollands sign, I might be confused, and slow down to get a better look. But that would only be because they have a similar length name, and a matching first letter and last 2 letters. But I would realize the mistake before I even parked or got out of the car, and leave to find my proper destination.
Re: Design Firm Or Hollands?
According to the original article, the cafe sign is based off the way Mr. Holland's wife signs her name.