Umm, no. Sometimes they have no idea who their source actually is. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_throat
Woodward and Bernstein knew the identity of Deep throat. they were the ones who finally confirmed that it was Mark Felt.
If google is to protect a blogger from a criminal process, Google will not know the blogger. So how will it know right away whether the blogger is a paedophile, scammer, or an activist fighting for someone's rights.
Some might say that this can be found out by reading through the blog, but that is placing undue burden on Google. This is something that is best decided by the court system whether the person deserves to be anonymous or not and whether the person then deserves prosecution or not.
Newspapers and broadcasters have a forty-year history of fighting criminal investigators who issue subpoenas to identify their sources
We should not compare Google bloggers and newspaper sources in this case. A newspaper reporter has met his source multiple times and has made a determination about his trustworthiness and value. Google has never met their blogger and has no idea who the blogger is. The blogger may actually be a criminal or, as in this case he/she may be an anonymous activist. Google has little information to make such value judgments.
So we must not expect that Google will protect their bloggers to the same extent as as newspaper sources. e.g. going to prison for them etc.
"...but the question is what Google does to make sure that access is not just limited, but monitored to avoid serious abuses like this."
Monitoring something in real time is very difficult and is not a productive way to work things. The best way to go is to do a check later on and also at the same time have quick and effective punishment for any transgressions.
This has happened in this case.
I am sure that everybody in Google now knows that their job is on the line for privacy issue violations. It is at least as effective as active monitoring if not more.
looking back right from Napster, Grokster etc there have been free (or very cheap) ways to distribute music. The music industry has, in every case, managed to stop them or mangle them beyond recognition.
The music industry has now set it's sights on p2p (pirate bay). While pirate bay may have won some victories, the music industry will keep on coming with one thing or the other until it shuts it down.
A student of history will also see that this is the pattern for all the other services. They fight for a while, win a few victories but ultimately loose.
The reason the music industry fights so hard is that it feels (rightly or wrongly) that it's survival is at stake. It will keep on fighting until it is able to generate the same amount of revenues through another model or is replaced by another industry altogether.
Of the $10.1 million paid to Attitude, $8 million was received as a loan earlier. So the total cost will be $2.1 million. Therefore the final profit, will not be $800 thousand, but $8.8 million.
Thats the whole idea if IP protection. A small company does not have the resources or the time to chase copiers, They should spend time improving the product. However copying a product or "reverse engineering" it takes far less time and money than actually developing it. For any company it is a far more profitable and safer route to wait for somebody else to develop a product and then simply copy it. This is exactly what happens in countries where IP protection is lax. In such cases there is less incentive for innovation and more incentive for copying.
This has not happened in the US market as the IP protection has been traditionaly very strong, but you must ask yourself as to why the most innovation hapens only in countries with strong IP protection.
Well, popcorn and a coke would be around Rs 50-60 and parking generally costs Rs 20/- for a car. So you can add a couple of dollars for those.
The rates I am giving are for multiplexes in a major metro (sepecifically Pune). There are also older single screen theatres which offer tickets at around half these rates, but do not have the best ambience, sound, seating etc.
What you are saying is that the companies have no idea, or no control over where their dollar gets spent.
The absurdity of this really comes to light when you apply it to print or outdoor advertising.
If the company is spending the money, it obviously has control over where it is spent. If it doesnt it is donating free money and I would like to line up in front of that company for some cash.
I live in India, where the pirated VCD's and DVD's are availaible even before the movie release. Still many people here go to the movies. This is because the pirated VCD's are not of good quality and also viewing at home is not as exciting as viewing in the theatre.
Many multiplexes here have a food court or a mall within them and generate some money from them too.
There are many new multiplexes coming up which enhance the movie experience. So even though they charge ~Rs 120 ($3) per ticket and the pirated VCD's are availaible for Rs 30/- ($0.8) I would go to the movies to watch on the big screen.
I think the recent publicity of google paying people to host videos on YouTube is coiming home to roost. More and more areas are demanding their cut in the hope that they would get something.
I think the recent publicity of google paying people to host videos on YouTube is coiming home to roost. More and more areas are demanding their cut in the hope that they would get something.
Re: Streisand effect
I agree with this.
It may be a better idea to keep the posts visible rather than hiding it. Especially as it is not spam.
Re: Re: Re: Google Vs Newspapers
Umm, no. Sometimes they have no idea who their source actually is. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_throat
Woodward and Bernstein knew the identity of Deep throat. they were the ones who finally confirmed that it was Mark Felt.
If google is to protect a blogger from a criminal process, Google will not know the blogger. So how will it know right away whether the blogger is a paedophile, scammer, or an activist fighting for someone's rights.
Some might say that this can be found out by reading through the blog, but that is placing undue burden on Google. This is something that is best decided by the court system whether the person deserves to be anonymous or not and whether the person then deserves prosecution or not.
Google Vs Newspapers
Newspapers and broadcasters have a forty-year history of fighting criminal investigators who issue subpoenas to identify their sources
We should not compare Google bloggers and newspaper sources in this case. A newspaper reporter has met his source multiple times and has made a determination about his trustworthiness and value. Google has never met their blogger and has no idea who the blogger is. The blogger may actually be a criminal or, as in this case he/she may be an anonymous activist. Google has little information to make such value judgments.
So we must not expect that Google will protect their bloggers to the same extent as as newspaper sources. e.g. going to prison for them etc.
"...but the question is what Google does to make sure that access is not just limited, but monitored to avoid serious abuses like this."
Monitoring something in real time is very difficult and is not a productive way to work things. The best way to go is to do a check later on and also at the same time have quick and effective punishment for any transgressions.
This has happened in this case.
I am sure that everybody in Google now knows that their job is on the line for privacy issue violations. It is at least as effective as active monitoring if not more.
Re: Re: Re: Apple Isn't Neutral
There is a question whether the DCMA safe harbours apply to Apple. Unlike other providers, Apple selects the apps which go up in it's store.
Maybe someone can give a legal perspective on this.
What if?
What if he said...
1. otherwise I will be really mad.
2. otherwise I will do some bad shit.
3. otherwise me and my friends will do some bad shit.
4. otherwise me and my Pakistani friends will do some bad shit.
Snakes on a Plane
If that were true, Snakes on a Plane would have been a great hit.
Looking Back
looking back right from Napster, Grokster etc there have been free (or very cheap) ways to distribute music. The music industry has, in every case, managed to stop them or mangle them beyond recognition.
The music industry has now set it's sights on p2p (pirate bay). While pirate bay may have won some victories, the music industry will keep on coming with one thing or the other until it shuts it down.
A student of history will also see that this is the pattern for all the other services. They fight for a while, win a few victories but ultimately loose.
The reason the music industry fights so hard is that it feels (rightly or wrongly) that it's survival is at stake. It will keep on fighting until it is able to generate the same amount of revenues through another model or is replaced by another industry altogether.
It doesn't add up
Forty-six percent of the counterfeit-bag owners bought the authentic products within two and a half years
If the above statement is true, sales of say a Gucci Bag today, would be 46% that of the counterfeit bags two and a half years ago.
It looks and smells very wrong.
a few points
With a free paper, how does one know that the paper is getting delivered to actual readers and not just ending up undelivered somewhere.
The circulation numbers in such cases will be highly suspect and will affect the advertising business too.
Sequel
You can bet that the sequel will not be a low cost movie. The budget will be escalated significantly.
Re: Re: Your math is off
Thanks for the update.
This story gives us a good idea of the economics of a patent lawsuit.
Your math is off
Of the $10.1 million paid to Attitude, $8 million was received as a loan earlier. So the total cost will be $2.1 million. Therefore the final profit, will not be $800 thousand, but $8.8 million.
Thats the whole idea if IP protection. A small company does not have the resources or the time to chase copiers, They should spend time improving the product. However copying a product or "reverse engineering" it takes far less time and money than actually developing it. For any company it is a far more profitable and safer route to wait for somebody else to develop a product and then simply copy it. This is exactly what happens in countries where IP protection is lax. In such cases there is less incentive for innovation and more incentive for copying.
This has not happened in the US market as the IP protection has been traditionaly very strong, but you must ask yourself as to why the most innovation hapens only in countries with strong IP protection.
Mike,
The video game industry is heavily hit by piracy. Many users of games try to pirate them, if possible.
While all pirated copies are not lost sales, some percentage surely are.
The shareware concept developed in the video game industry as a method of sampling the final product, and serves the purpose quite well.
Re: @rishi
Well, popcorn and a coke would be around Rs 50-60 and parking generally costs Rs 20/- for a car. So you can add a couple of dollars for those.
The rates I am giving are for multiplexes in a major metro (sepecifically Pune). There are also older single screen theatres which offer tickets at around half these rates, but do not have the best ambience, sound, seating etc.
What you are saying is that the companies have no idea, or no control over where their dollar gets spent.
The absurdity of this really comes to light when you apply it to print or outdoor advertising.
If the company is spending the money, it obviously has control over where it is spent. If it doesnt it is donating free money and I would like to line up in front of that company for some cash.
I will agree with Mike here.
I live in India, where the pirated VCD's and DVD's are availaible even before the movie release. Still many people here go to the movies. This is because the pirated VCD's are not of good quality and also viewing at home is not as exciting as viewing in the theatre.
Many multiplexes here have a food court or a mall within them and generate some money from them too.
There are many new multiplexes coming up which enhance the movie experience. So even though they charge ~Rs 120 ($3) per ticket and the pirated VCD's are availaible for Rs 30/- ($0.8) I would go to the movies to watch on the big screen.
Rishi
why it hapens
I think the recent publicity of google paying people to host videos on YouTube is coiming home to roost. More and more areas are demanding their cut in the hope that they would get something.
why it hapens
I think the recent publicity of google paying people to host videos on YouTube is coiming home to roost. More and more areas are demanding their cut in the hope that they would get something.