The conclusion seems a little overly optimistic, I think. Sure, a new generation will grow up seeing more clearly what's wrong with the system than the last generation, but corporate interests will largely remain unchanged, and their lobbying influence, if history is any guide, will only have grown.
How to react to someone who almost completely agrees with you, but occasionally does something slightly different than you suggest?
Well I don't know, it probably involves some sort of intensive reeducation, likely involving electroshock therapy, at the very least. </sarcasm>
Geez, get a grip. And you accuse *them* of overreacting? It is possible, you know, for reasonable people to disagree at times, cut them some slack for not enabling you to say "See, they agree too. We're right again, go us!"
"copyright law and rules concerning fair use seem pretty clear"
I tend to agree with this blog on most "IP" issues, but I never thought I'd see the current state of IP laws described as "pretty clear"! When so many people can disagree so wildly and in so many ways on the interpretation of those laws, it seems pretty self explanatory that they're anything but "pretty clear".
In this case I suspect those numbers mean the machines probably worked exactly as intended. That kind of margin seems more likely to be caused by the inherently and unavoidably less precise human counting. I suspect when the machines are experiencing flaws that affect their vote counts, you'd see a larger differential than that.
I think this issue is hugely important, but I don't actually care if the telcos don't get punished for their involvement in this. It's patently obvious that they were merely the tools used to violate the law. All I want is to ensure their full cooperation with all investigations into the matter.
We shouldn't be giving them immunity for *nothing*, we should be offering it in exchange for their cooperation.
Screw punishing the tool, we need their help to go after the ones who wielded it.
*That's* the compromise Democrats should be talking about.
Otherwise we're just legitimizing the bypassing of the Constitution and countless other laws that happened.
I'm with some of the others, it's hard to accept this (or most other news) as "privileged information". Most news, simply by nature of being news, is public.
No matter what they think about the rampant abuse of the patent system, it does create a demand for lots of lawyers for the abuse of the system, but at the same time creates a large demand for plenty of lawyers for the defense. The firm probably doesn't actually care about that issue, it's just smart marketing if you're targeting the defendants.
it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
Sounds like Jefferson just paraphrased the concept of "information wants to be free", that's really cool!
it is clear that this was not the intention at all
I wholeheartedly agree, but it's worth noting, of course, that intention doesn't matter when interpreting the letter of the law. If a judge agrees with the idea that all such monopolies "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", then that is how the law will be enforced.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by ttrygve.
the next generation
The conclusion seems a little overly optimistic, I think. Sure, a new generation will grow up seeing more clearly what's wrong with the system than the last generation, but corporate interests will largely remain unchanged, and their lobbying influence, if history is any guide, will only have grown.
How to react to someone who almost completely agrees with you, but occasionally does something slightly different than you suggest?
Well I don't know, it probably involves some sort of intensive reeducation, likely involving electroshock therapy, at the very least. </sarcasm>
Geez, get a grip. And you accuse *them* of overreacting? It is possible, you know, for reasonable people to disagree at times, cut them some slack for not enabling you to say "See, they agree too. We're right again, go us!"
pretty clear??
"copyright law and rules concerning fair use seem pretty clear"
I tend to agree with this blog on most "IP" issues, but I never thought I'd see the current state of IP laws described as "pretty clear"! When so many people can disagree so wildly and in so many ways on the interpretation of those laws, it seems pretty self explanatory that they're anything but "pretty clear".
Re: Missed the point, I think
Bill's absolutely right, here.
I also have a lot more apps than I actually use, but the apps I use the most on my phone are mostly 3rd party downloads.
Think of it more as a signal-to-noise ratio than an indicator of the success of all apps as a whole.
In this case I suspect those numbers mean the machines probably worked exactly as intended. That kind of margin seems more likely to be caused by the inherently and unavoidably less precise human counting. I suspect when the machines are experiencing flaws that affect their vote counts, you'd see a larger differential than that.
disc prices
I'd be happy to invest the money in a new Blu-ray player, it's the price of discs themselves that's holding me back.
$200 to replace my dvd player? Sure. $30 per movie? Not a chance in hell.
Re: two party politics
"elected for life"?! Do we really want to risk a mistake even half as bad as Bush becoming a permanent fixture? No thank you.
The system is broken, I agree, but that doesn't seem like a solution (not that I have one to recommend).
telco immunity
I think this issue is hugely important, but I don't actually care if the telcos don't get punished for their involvement in this. It's patently obvious that they were merely the tools used to violate the law. All I want is to ensure their full cooperation with all investigations into the matter.
We shouldn't be giving them immunity for *nothing*, we should be offering it in exchange for their cooperation.
Screw punishing the tool, we need their help to go after the ones who wielded it.
*That's* the compromise Democrats should be talking about.
Otherwise we're just legitimizing the bypassing of the Constitution and countless other laws that happened.
privileged information
I'm with some of the others, it's hard to accept this (or most other news) as "privileged information". Most news, simply by nature of being news, is public.
they probably appreciate the "patent trolls"
No matter what they think about the rampant abuse of the patent system, it does create a demand for lots of lawyers for the abuse of the system, but at the same time creates a large demand for plenty of lawyers for the defense. The firm probably doesn't actually care about that issue, it's just smart marketing if you're targeting the defendants.
source?
Also, what was the source for that Jefferson quote?
Founding Father and ... Open Source?
Sounds like Jefferson just paraphrased the concept of "information wants to be free", that's really cool!
I wholeheartedly agree, but it's worth noting, of course, that intention doesn't matter when interpreting the letter of the law. If a judge agrees with the idea that all such monopolies "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", then that is how the law will be enforced.