Occupy was just a warm-up. Pass SOPA. We will ALL turn off our computers and smartphones and take to the streets to slay the buffoons. Ok, slay is an exaggeration, but we can VOTE them all out. Yes, every single house member could be sent packing, along with 1/3 of the senators. Wouldn't that be fun? Let's do it, people.
Just a reminder that this Act is not law. This bill was introduced in December (by James Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin's 5 district) and has been sitting in committee since then. The bill has no co-sponsors. Without cosponsors, it's not going anywhere. Nothing to see here. Move along, folks.
I agree that we should let the courts work this out, not to mention that I'd hate to worry that some corporate attorney might otherwise go hungry. At brief glance, it seems odd that some companies are missing. I see AMD but neither Intel nor Motorola. Scientific Atlanta (and parent Cisco) is there but not General Instrument. And what about the phone companies? Everyone sues the phone companies.
I think that it would be better satire to propose executing the TOP 25%. After all, there is much historical precedent for this. Tyrannical regimes always like to kill off the intellectuals. And who knows? Perhaps they'd be right.
As a real estate agent in southern California (talk about a ridiculous market), some comments:
1. Commissions have inched down, now often 5% or 4% on more expensive properties.
2. More competition is good for everyone. Personally, I like the idea of people posting comments and think the more feedback, the better. The only concerns I have about this are (a) someone must insure that no personal information is disclosed ("I love original Andy Warhol in the living room" -- bad idea) and (b) there would need to be some contractual protection for the listing broker for the disclosure (a new form perhaps). This is a real issue: A seller could sue the listing broker for information disclosed publicly -- and would win absent contractual protection.
3. Some people like to use real estate agents and some do not. Fine. For those who want to do the work themselves, great. If you get a better deal by not using an agent, I have no issue with that, but don't blame me if you don't use me.
4. The internet already has changed the way that agents work and homes are sold. More change is coming. Some agents already are working on a fee basis, versus commission, for example.
5. While most transactions sail through with minimal issues, this is still a complex and risky business when things get ugly -- and ugly they get when you're talking about assets this big.
6. While some agents make a lot of money, most toil for very little. We're independent contractors, so we pay self employment taxes, 100% of our health insurance, license fees, MLS fees, association fees, E&O insurance fees, continuing education costs -- all before we make one dime of commission. If we don't sell, we don't get paid. Yes, the industry is a many-tentacled creature that lobbies heavily to protect its position -- like every other one out there. It will resist change but change it will. I believe that the net will continue to foster greater competition and better information for buyers and I welcome it. Way to go Zillow and way to go Redfin for slapping the dinosaur, but don't be surprised that it may bite back.
I think that the judge took the correct approach here. There is a danger that anonymity provides greater opportunity for spurious mudslinging. In this case, however, the plaintiff had an opportunity to move forward. Assuming that he had done so and assuming that he prevailed in contradicting any factual misstatements on the website in question, the defendant could have been ordered to post a retraction -- all while maintaining anonymity for the defendant.
Should we not let this product's launch settle into orbit, giving us time to evaluate its merits before we demonize Google for vaguely unethical behavior? Let's let the market fight this one out for a good while.
So why not sue? If he's buys the rights and can prevail in a case, is it altogether wrong? Perhaps he takes the proceeds and creates something altogether new. Perhaps he donates it to a charity in dire need. Perhaps the litigation moves the book of law in this area that much father along. We sometimes attach too much importance to certain characteristics of what we believe "real work" is. If we judge on the basis of hard work, let's all line up behind the guy picking lettuce. Let's not cast stones -- we all live in glass houses.
The fourth amendment says this: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Phone call records constitute "papers" and any entity should he held to constitutional standard. In our daily lives we give away access to our information to various organizations in the contracts we form, but that does not give these organizations the right to give our information away to anyone, including the government. Having an FBI employee search our phone records without our permission is no different than having an agent walk unannounced into our homes and rifiling through our personal correspondence.
While many individuals may have no problem with either of the above searches, that does not make it right for all and our consitution specifically prohibits it.
Freedom and security have an uneasy alliance. We make sacrifices to both to find a path between them that best allows us to prosper. Any liberties that we give away we should do soberly, after much reflection and debate; anything less is a stain on our heritage and an invitation to the abuse of power.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by mrbillliveson.
SOPA induces revolution
Occupy was just a warm-up. Pass SOPA. We will ALL turn off our computers and smartphones and take to the streets to slay the buffoons. Ok, slay is an exaggeration, but we can VOTE them all out. Yes, every single house member could be sent packing, along with 1/3 of the senators. Wouldn't that be fun? Let's do it, people.
Go with the bro
Yep, never happened and the analogy is a lousy one. I'd be with the brother, though, if it happened: Take a lemonade and be happy.
this is not law!
Just a reminder that this Act is not law. This bill was introduced in December (by James Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin's 5 district) and has been sitting in committee since then. The bill has no co-sponsors. Without cosponsors, it's not going anywhere. Nothing to see here. Move along, folks.
Not at the party
I agree that we should let the courts work this out, not to mention that I'd hate to worry that some corporate attorney might otherwise go hungry. At brief glance, it seems odd that some companies are missing. I see AMD but neither Intel nor Motorola. Scientific Atlanta (and parent Cisco) is there but not General Instrument. And what about the phone companies? Everyone sues the phone companies.
Could have been better
I think that it would be better satire to propose executing the TOP 25%. After all, there is much historical precedent for this. Tyrannical regimes always like to kill off the intellectuals. And who knows? Perhaps they'd be right.
It's all good
As a real estate agent in southern California (talk about a ridiculous market), some comments:
1. Commissions have inched down, now often 5% or 4% on more expensive properties.
2. More competition is good for everyone. Personally, I like the idea of people posting comments and think the more feedback, the better. The only concerns I have about this are (a) someone must insure that no personal information is disclosed ("I love original Andy Warhol in the living room" -- bad idea) and (b) there would need to be some contractual protection for the listing broker for the disclosure (a new form perhaps). This is a real issue: A seller could sue the listing broker for information disclosed publicly -- and would win absent contractual protection.
3. Some people like to use real estate agents and some do not. Fine. For those who want to do the work themselves, great. If you get a better deal by not using an agent, I have no issue with that, but don't blame me if you don't use me.
4. The internet already has changed the way that agents work and homes are sold. More change is coming. Some agents already are working on a fee basis, versus commission, for example.
5. While most transactions sail through with minimal issues, this is still a complex and risky business when things get ugly -- and ugly they get when you're talking about assets this big.
6. While some agents make a lot of money, most toil for very little. We're independent contractors, so we pay self employment taxes, 100% of our health insurance, license fees, MLS fees, association fees, E&O insurance fees, continuing education costs -- all before we make one dime of commission. If we don't sell, we don't get paid. Yes, the industry is a many-tentacled creature that lobbies heavily to protect its position -- like every other one out there. It will resist change but change it will. I believe that the net will continue to foster greater competition and better information for buyers and I welcome it. Way to go Zillow and way to go Redfin for slapping the dinosaur, but don't be surprised that it may bite back.
Thoughtful approach by the judge
I think that the judge took the correct approach here. There is a danger that anonymity provides greater opportunity for spurious mudslinging. In this case, however, the plaintiff had an opportunity to move forward. Assuming that he had done so and assuming that he prevailed in contradicting any factual misstatements on the website in question, the defendant could have been ordered to post a retraction -- all while maintaining anonymity for the defendant.
Let's give this some time
Should we not let this product's launch settle into orbit, giving us time to evaluate its merits before we demonize Google for vaguely unethical behavior? Let's let the market fight this one out for a good while.
It's not so simple
So why not sue? If he's buys the rights and can prevail in a case, is it altogether wrong? Perhaps he takes the proceeds and creates something altogether new. Perhaps he donates it to a charity in dire need. Perhaps the litigation moves the book of law in this area that much father along. We sometimes attach too much importance to certain characteristics of what we believe "real work" is. If we judge on the basis of hard work, let's all line up behind the guy picking lettuce. Let's not cast stones -- we all live in glass houses.
It's still a consitutional privacy issue
The fourth amendment says this: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Phone call records constitute "papers" and any entity should he held to constitutional standard. In our daily lives we give away access to our information to various organizations in the contracts we form, but that does not give these organizations the right to give our information away to anyone, including the government. Having an FBI employee search our phone records without our permission is no different than having an agent walk unannounced into our homes and rifiling through our personal correspondence.
While many individuals may have no problem with either of the above searches, that does not make it right for all and our consitution specifically prohibits it.
Freedom and security have an uneasy alliance. We make sacrifices to both to find a path between them that best allows us to prosper. Any liberties that we give away we should do soberly, after much reflection and debate; anything less is a stain on our heritage and an invitation to the abuse of power.