The New York Times has it's own ridiculous article that information should not be "free". The Price of Free. The article concludes with: "... If the changes in our viewing habits stanch the flow of money back to studios, producing those kinds of programs may no longer be possible. In their place, we’ll get more junk: dopey reality shows, cookie-cutter police dramas, inane gab fests. The vast wasteland will become even vaster."
While Nicholas Carr may be correct; that we will get more junk, he seems to miss the fundamental economic principle of the free-market: if you can't make money, too bad.
As TechDirt consistently points out, if the current business model will not generate a profit; it's time to change your business model so that you can make money.
I might as well toss in the conspiracy theory allusion. Two known articles on "FREE" being bad? Are there others? Hmmm, something to think about.
Relative to federally funded research being publicly available on-line; I might as well point out another privatization travesty, the Bayh-Dole Act. This act allows researchers to patent results that were funded by the public. Any research accomplished through public (tax) support should not be patentable. It belongs in the public domain and should be freely available on-line.
This is exactly what some pundit recently said on TV. To bad I can't remember the product, the who, what, when, or where. What I do remember was being stunned by the phrase "low customer acceptance". Clearly, if customers are not accepting your product - drop it or revise your business model. Don't put the blame on the customer for not buying!
I get a kick out of the so-called capitalists who whine about "free" products, community forums such as Wikipedia, and government providing certain services like cable. Competition is competition, if you can't compete too bad.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the taxpayers authorizing the government to provide services such as cable to its citizens.
An often overlooked aspect of this whole debate is that the government is still buying equipment from private companies (such as Cisco) and is employing people. So what is the difference, in terms of the economy, if the cable staff works for you local municipality or Time-Warner. None really.
As Mike correctly notes, when you own something you have a "right of first sale". The sellers of merchandise to not have a right to deny you, post sale, the use of your property. When you buy something you acquire a property right to the use of that product.
You are correct to say that "I can't force them to serve me against their will,..", but you missing the point. Let's suppose you buy a game and that game calls home every time you run it. Now the game company introduces a new version of the game and disables your ability to play that game. You bought that game and have an entitlement (property right) to use that game, the game company does not have the right to trespass onto or inspect your equipment to do whatever they want. You have rights too, learn to stand-up for them.
Good advice, but of dubious value. Are you going to pay an attorney $$$$ to look at the EULA for a $50 game?
Perhaps even more egregious, do you think you would ever find someone at the game company who would actually negotiate the terms of a contract?
Personally, if any contract is to be considered valid these companies must provide you with a representative to discuss the terms of the purchase. The current approach of "contract by adhesion" should simply, in my opinion, be made illegal.
My original wording was convoluted. This is about regulation. Theirer's thesis is that innovation will occur naturally therefore we don't need regulation. This is logically flawed.
Hence my FDA example. While we live, we still need regulations to assure that our food is safe. The fact that we die (or that an innovative product dies) has very little to do with an immediate need, if required, to regulate food quality (device neutrality).
We need to put an end to this fiction that the manufacturers of a retail product can somehow retain unreasonable control over a product. Just because they make these ridiculous assertions does not mean that they are enforceable.
Acquiring a property right to use a product does not translate into using that product in an illegal manner. I can buy a car, but I will still get a speeding ticket if I drive to fast.
You are quite confused. If I buy a CD, I should be able to copy it onto my MP3 Player as I have acquired the property right to use that music. If I buy a Play Station, I have a right to hack it as I have acquired the property right to use the play station. If I buy a cell phone, I have a right to jailbreak it because I have acquired the property right to that cell phone.
I also have the right to develop my own applications to run on any devices that I buy.
It is time to put an end to the end-run of claiming that products that you bought were merely licensed and that your use of the product is at the sufferance of the product maker.
When you buy a product you acquire a property right to use that product as you wish.
We need to debunk the myth that TI and most "sellers" of electronic equipment somehow retain a property right to what you bought. When you buy a product, you obtain a property right to use that product. That means that you have the right to modify it.
We can pull out the usual analogy to the automobile, when you buy the car, you have the ability to make modifications to it. Including the ability to modify the engine.
It's unfortunate that too many people unthinkingly accept the premise that the manufactures somehow retain an undeserved ownership privilege.
The logic of "kicking someone off the internet" for some sort of perceived "violation" is absurd.
Suppose a student is behind on paying off his/her JC Penny's credit card. JC Penny, applying this logic logic, can go to the University and have that person expelled from the internet!!!
One can only hope that the Universities develop a backbone and tell the MPAA and the RIAA to take-a-hike. Universities are there to teach, not to act as private police force for the benefit of the MPAA or the RIAA.
While the focus is on expense of enforcement, we are missing the "bigger picture". Why should an ISP even be involved in protecting a third party?
Imagine some guy walks up to you points to a house and demands that you break into that house to see if there is some supposedly stolen property there and if it is there for you to retrieve it for his benefit. Would you feel obligated to do it?
Even an ISP was somehow required to protect a third party, who should pay for it? I would advocate that the RIAA and the MPAA would have to pay the ISPs for this "service". It should NOT be a cost that is passed on to all customers of the ISP.
Finally, what gives the ISP the right to read (inspect) your packets? When you give something to the US Post Office, UPS, or Fedex - you expect the package to be delivered unopened.
So if the MPAA or the RIAA can somehow convince a judge that reading the "mail" is acceptable, where will it end? Every special interest group will demand that they have a right to read your mail to protect what-ever-it-is that they are protecting.
While it makes no economic sense to spend gobs of money enforcing something that can't be enforced, we are also faced with the specter of corporations using the power of the State to eliminate our freedoms to protect their revenue stream.
The Wallet wrote "Credit reporting agencies — Experian, Equifax and TransUnion — earn money any time a consumer or a lender purchases a credit score through them. FICO also earns money for selling their scores."
If we apply the logic of the MPAA/RIAA/Associated Press regarding the use of data that they claim to own, we should be getting a royalty payment each time these credit companies use our "private" data. If it is OK for these firms to privatize our data for their benefit, then there is nothing wrong for us in using data that is freely available.
Its not simply a question of understanding technology. Lawyers seem to believe that a "solution" can be obtained for any issue provided it is psychoanalyzed ad nauseam. Whether the "solution" can ever be implemented in the real world, is totally irrelevant. Needles to say this results in ludicrous decisions.
To follow-up on Richard's point, those advocating a "strong" copyright assert that they have a right to invade your "territory" at their will in order to enforce their so-called rights. They even go so far as to demand that third parties, such as Universities "monitor" internet traffic to protect their so-called property. Clearly, if allowed to continue, this will make a mockery of privacy and our legal system, especially due process.
RSS
Twitter
Guess What - "The Price of Free' (as Steve R.)
The New York Times has it's own ridiculous article that information should not be "free". The Price of Free. The article concludes with: "... If the changes in our viewing habits stanch the flow of money back to studios, producing those kinds of programs may no longer be possible. In their place, we’ll get more junk: dopey reality shows, cookie-cutter police dramas, inane gab fests. The vast wasteland will become even vaster."
While Nicholas Carr may be correct; that we will get more junk, he seems to miss the fundamental economic principle of the free-market: if you can't make money, too bad.
As TechDirt consistently points out, if the current business model will not generate a profit; it's time to change your business model so that you can make money.
I might as well toss in the conspiracy theory allusion. Two known articles on "FREE" being bad? Are there others? Hmmm, something to think about.
Publiclly Funded Research Belongs in the Public Domain (as Steve R.)
Relative to federally funded research being publicly available on-line; I might as well point out another privatization travesty, the Bayh-Dole Act. This act allows researchers to patent results that were funded by the public. Any research accomplished through public (tax) support should not be patentable. It belongs in the public domain and should be freely available on-line.
Blame the Customer (as Steve R.)
This is exactly what some pundit recently said on TV. To bad I can't remember the product, the who, what, when, or where. What I do remember was being stunned by the phrase "low customer acceptance". Clearly, if customers are not accepting your product - drop it or revise your business model. Don't put the blame on the customer for not buying!
Government is Part of the Competative Landscape (as Steve R.)
I get a kick out of the so-called capitalists who whine about "free" products, community forums such as Wikipedia, and government providing certain services like cable. Competition is competition, if you can't compete too bad.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the taxpayers authorizing the government to provide services such as cable to its citizens.
An often overlooked aspect of this whole debate is that the government is still buying equipment from private companies (such as Cisco) and is employing people. So what is the difference, in terms of the economy, if the cable staff works for you local municipality or Time-Warner. None really.
You Bought it You Own It (as Steve R.)
As Mike correctly notes, when you own something you have a "right of first sale". The sellers of merchandise to not have a right to deny you, post sale, the use of your property. When you buy something you acquire a property right to the use of that product.
Re: Re: Undisclosed Issues (as Steve R.)
You are correct to say that "I can't force them to serve me against their will,..", but you missing the point. Let's suppose you buy a game and that game calls home every time you run it. Now the game company introduces a new version of the game and disables your ability to play that game. You bought that game and have an entitlement (property right) to use that game, the game company does not have the right to trespass onto or inspect your equipment to do whatever they want. You have rights too, learn to stand-up for them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Undisclosed Issues (as Steve R.)
Good advice, but of dubious value. Are you going to pay an attorney $$$$ to look at the EULA for a $50 game?
Perhaps even more egregious, do you think you would ever find someone at the game company who would actually negotiate the terms of a contract?
Personally, if any contract is to be considered valid these companies must provide you with a representative to discuss the terms of the purchase. The current approach of "contract by adhesion" should simply, in my opinion, be made illegal.
Re: Re: Undisclosed Issues (as Steve R.)
My original wording was convoluted. This is about regulation. Theirer's thesis is that innovation will occur naturally therefore we don't need regulation. This is logically flawed.
Hence my FDA example. While we live, we still need regulations to assure that our food is safe. The fact that we die (or that an innovative product dies) has very little to do with an immediate need, if required, to regulate food quality (device neutrality).
Re: Re: Undisclosed Issues (as Steve R.)
You must not have read any EULAs lately.
It's Your Property (as Steve R.)
Once it is in your hands, its your property. Apple has not right to stop you from using it as you wish.
See the TechDirt Article: Ownership Or License: The Difference Matters
We need to put an end to this fiction that the manufacturers of a retail product can somehow retain unreasonable control over a product. Just because they make these ridiculous assertions does not mean that they are enforceable.
Re: Re: The Very Concept of "Sale" has been Under Attack (as Steve R.)
Acquiring a property right to use a product does not translate into using that product in an illegal manner. I can buy a car, but I will still get a speeding ticket if I drive to fast.
Re: Dazed and confused (as Steve R.)
You are quite confused. If I buy a CD, I should be able to copy it onto my MP3 Player as I have acquired the property right to use that music. If I buy a Play Station, I have a right to hack it as I have acquired the property right to use the play station. If I buy a cell phone, I have a right to jailbreak it because I have acquired the property right to that cell phone.
I also have the right to develop my own applications to run on any devices that I buy.
The Very Concept of "Sale" has been Under Attack (as Steve R.)
It is time to put an end to the end-run of claiming that products that you bought were merely licensed and that your use of the product is at the sufferance of the product maker.
When you buy a product you acquire a property right to use that product as you wish.
It is Your Property to do with as you Please (as Steve R.)
We need to debunk the myth that TI and most "sellers" of electronic equipment somehow retain a property right to what you bought. When you buy a product, you obtain a property right to use that product. That means that you have the right to modify it.
We can pull out the usual analogy to the automobile, when you buy the car, you have the ability to make modifications to it. Including the ability to modify the engine.
It's unfortunate that too many people unthinkingly accept the premise that the manufactures somehow retain an undeserved ownership privilege.
Re: Re: buy more stuff (as Steve R.)
The logic of "kicking someone off the internet" for some sort of perceived "violation" is absurd.
Suppose a student is behind on paying off his/her JC Penny's credit card. JC Penny, applying this logic logic, can go to the University and have that person expelled from the internet!!!
One can only hope that the Universities develop a backbone and tell the MPAA and the RIAA to take-a-hike. Universities are there to teach, not to act as private police force for the benefit of the MPAA or the RIAA.
Where is the Due Process? (as Steve R.)
While the focus is on expense of enforcement, we are missing the "bigger picture". Why should an ISP even be involved in protecting a third party?
Imagine some guy walks up to you points to a house and demands that you break into that house to see if there is some supposedly stolen property there and if it is there for you to retrieve it for his benefit. Would you feel obligated to do it?
Even an ISP was somehow required to protect a third party, who should pay for it? I would advocate that the RIAA and the MPAA would have to pay the ISPs for this "service". It should NOT be a cost that is passed on to all customers of the ISP.
Finally, what gives the ISP the right to read (inspect) your packets? When you give something to the US Post Office, UPS, or Fedex - you expect the package to be delivered unopened.
So if the MPAA or the RIAA can somehow convince a judge that reading the "mail" is acceptable, where will it end? Every special interest group will demand that they have a right to read your mail to protect what-ever-it-is that they are protecting.
While it makes no economic sense to spend gobs of money enforcing something that can't be enforced, we are also faced with the specter of corporations using the power of the State to eliminate our freedoms to protect their revenue stream.
(as Steve R.)
Disappointing.
Where are my Royalty Payments? (as Steve R.)
The Wallet wrote "Credit reporting agencies — Experian, Equifax and TransUnion — earn money any time a consumer or a lender purchases a credit score through them. FICO also earns money for selling their scores."
If we apply the logic of the MPAA/RIAA/Associated Press regarding the use of data that they claim to own, we should be getting a royalty payment each time these credit companies use our "private" data. If it is OK for these firms to privatize our data for their benefit, then there is nothing wrong for us in using data that is freely available.
Beyond Tech (as Steve R.)
Its not simply a question of understanding technology. Lawyers seem to believe that a "solution" can be obtained for any issue provided it is psychoanalyzed ad nauseam. Whether the "solution" can ever be implemented in the real world, is totally irrelevant. Needles to say this results in ludicrous decisions.
Our Legal System at Risk (as Steve R.)
To follow-up on Richard's point, those advocating a "strong" copyright assert that they have a right to invade your "territory" at their will in order to enforce their so-called rights. They even go so far as to demand that third parties, such as Universities "monitor" internet traffic to protect their so-called property. Clearly, if allowed to continue, this will make a mockery of privacy and our legal system, especially due process.