A few Anonymous Cowards have said that this was a "simple mistake" by ICE and they were "honest" about their mistake. The honest part is at least true (finally) and the mistake may have been simple, but it had far reaching adverse effects.
Given that both statements are true, that is still an incredibly low bar to hit. To be honest about a simple mistake still does not make up for its illeagal seizure. Heck, the process to get the sites back up was more due precess than was used in the initial take down.
We must hold our government to a high moral standard. ICE did not meet it.
I'm surprised that they don't market their paid subscription more. $36 per year is a small price to pay for what it offers. Although, part of the reason I pay it is because I like ther service and what to see them prosper. I would think that if more people joined the subscription model they would have an easier time being profitable.
Given that, does anyone know the margin between the revanue from adds compared to the subscription? Obviously the amount of time listened would have a huge effect, so assume ~50 hours a month.
That doesn't make much sense. Telco is not a type of broadband. Other than cable, you can get dsl (which may not even qualify as broadband under the new definitions), fiber, and other more commercial offerings such as T1.
If you are referring to the FCC data that only tested if at least one housing unit within a zip code had broadband, then its pointless. That measurement is so widly inaccurate that it should be used as a basis for any conclusion.
I do see a silver lining to this idiocy. This move signals that the US is becoming more open to the world managing the internet instead of a US non-profit. This specific move is pointless and would probably cause more problems then it solves, but I like the general direction that they are pointing. A US corporation should not have such influence over the world's internet.
Wired communications are a natural monopoly because of the huge initial cost. Check Verizon's numbers for FIOS. Its in the billions. Wireless has a cheaper initial cost because a single tower can cover a large area. Competition does exist at the wireless level, but not wired. Wireless and wired are slightly different markets. Wireless cannot keep up with the speeds and reliability that wired provides, although that may change in the future.
In most areas, there is only one wired broadband provider available. What Richard is suggesting is common-carrier status for wired broadband. I tend to agree with him, because the barrier to entry for competitors is billions of dollars in capital.
Another thing that I find interesting is the inherent inefficiency that is displayed here. Why are they redacting the same document multiple times? Once a document is redacted (properly), I don't see why they don't store the redacted copy for future use. Surely the cost of storage is less than paying for it to be done for every FoIA request.
I entirey agree with your assesment of M$'s actions, but there is a problem.
Microsoft duplicated i4i's product in Word 2007. i4i is not a patent troll, the copied product was originally created for Word 2000 and is not the only product that they offer.
The problem lies in the patent itself. The patent itself is not a description of the duplicated functionality. It is, in fact, an overly broad patent covering the separation of a documents content from its structure, in other words, parsing XML.
I believe that what actually happened is that M$ (in their typical fashion) duplicated their product which angered i4i. They used a patent that, although related, did not actually cover the functionality. Combined, they offer enough evidence (to a layman) that M$ infringed. Without a doubt M$ engaged in some questionable actions in regard to this issue, but it was not patent infringement.
The referenced article doesn't have many specifics, but one question that most people here missed is "Who owns the statement?". If the company hired the contractor for work, shouldn't the company own it and not the contractor? I suppose if there was a contract involved that specifically stated "The contractor retains rights on the work produced" this might make sense (disregarding the copyright question). Otherwise, the contractor has already sold the coyright to the company, which means that the copyright statement in the file is legally useless. Honestly, if the above statement did exist in some form, the contractor should have never been hired in the first place.
Wait ... what?
It seems to me that you are saying that the use of the legal system is a valid to to simply say "We're watching you"?
That is a complete waste of the courts time and money (our money). If they want to say "we're watching you", they shouldn't use a lawsuit as the communications medium.
I just read the summary for this story on Slashdot, which says that the students notes were NOT deleted. From the complaint (PDF) itself:
The notes are still accessible on the Kindle 2
device in a file separate from the deleted book, but are of no value. For example, a note such as
"remember this paragraph for your thesis" is useless if it does not actually a reference a specific
Personally, I have been buying games for years almost exclusivly through Steam. Steam has its own kind of DRM, (in addition to what the publishers themselves have) although its not "DRM" per se. You simply have to sign in. Games are tied to your account. While this makes it easy to transfer your personal game to any machine that you use, you are subject to what Steam allows you to do with your game. This includes the inability to resell any of your legally purchased games.
Steam makes it incredibly easy to buy new games. I can (and have) bought games on a whim that took 1 minute for the purchase and about 2 hours to download, all without leaving my chair. Their massive collection of games, great community, and constant deals that makes it a juggernaut of video game distribution that completely negates any resell of an individual game.
A Steam gift purchase is a one-time transfer - after the recipient has activated and installed the game, it is a non-refundable game in his or her Steam games collection. Also note that you may only gift new purchases - you may not transfer games you already own. That'd be like wrapping up and presenting the toaster you've used every morning for the past year.
The scary part is: Steam has done so much right that people will continue to use it (like me), which will push the industry in the direction of no second sales. In this case, the market forces are actually moving against second sales because Steam's model is so successful.
P.S. Steam: If my friend doesn't have a toaster, a used one is still a valuable gift ... you asses.
What I find interesting about this is not the parallels with the Shepard Fairey case, but the Judge's reasoning. It is a clear and concise description of a transformative work. This Judge clearly understands Fair Use.
Back to Shepard Fairey, what Mike didn't post was the section fo the ruling that could be, almost word for word, why Shepard Fairey's poster is fair use:
The fourth and final statutory factor is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." ... [Sedgwick] argues that "the fourth factor weighs in [its] favor because Delsman's alteration, public display of altered photographs and public distribution of the same have injured Sedgwick's potential ability to continue to use the photos of its CEO and CFO (sic) for future marketing purposes." However, the relevant question is not whether the work itself has lost value, but rather, whether the secondary use has usurped the commercial demand for the original. Here, there is no such demand, since there is no commercial market for them. And even if there were, Defendant's use of the photographs is sufficiently transformative that it would not be a "substitute" for the original.
Moreover, the possibility that Defendant's use of the photographs has undermined Sedgwick's ability to use them in the future is not remediable under the Copyright Act. As the Supreme Court explained ..., "when a lethal parody, like a scathing theater review, kills demand for the original, it does not produce a harm cognizable under the Copyright Act." The Court finds that the fourth fair use factor favors Defendant.