David Muir's Favorite BestNetTech Posts Of The Week
The favorite posts we choose are undoubtedly influenced by our experience. So here’s a quick rundown of my background: I’m Canadian. I went to school for Radio and Television Arts and briefly worked in print and radio journalism. I was involved in and managed software development at IBM for two decades. Now I’m a real estate agent. (Along the way, I spent ten years as an auxiliary police officer in Toronto.)
Real estate agent and ex-cop you say? Some of you have two reasons to stop reading right now! But I hope you continue on.
It is no shock that trademark and copyright law affected my first two media-related career choices. But it is a bit of a surprise to see the way it affects my current career. Facts are not subject to copyright. Real estate’s Multiple Listing Service (MLS®) is essentially a database of facts and most real estate boards try to claim copyright over the entries. Lately the fight has been more focused on consumer privacy than copyright. But no matter what, gone are the days when a real estate agent’s key contribution was “I know something you don’t know.” My success in this career hinges on the same points Mike’s been saying: Connect with people (fans!), be human, and be awesome. The business models that will work in real estate, as in many other industries facing a disruption by the Internet, are based on adding value by being an enabler and not a gatekeeper.
I noticed a theme that influenced the rest of my favorites: Just because this is true… doesn’t mean that is true. For all you students of philosophy, some of these are examples of logical fallacies, mostly non-sequiturs. Some are just plain overreaches.
As a general example: Just because copyright law exists doesn’t mean it should always be enforced to the fullest extent. Nor does it mean that every business setback requires a new and tougher copyright law to compensate.
Just because you can sue or threaten to sue someone, doesn’t mean it is always the right way to go. This week we’ve seen the UFC take on its own biggest fans and a magnanimous pair of actors smooth over the PR mess left by litigious lawyers.
Just because Louis CK found a formula for success doesn’t mean it is the only answer — or even the best answer. The naysayers who say things like “only a business model that makes money should be used” have not wrapped their heads around the idea that one-size does not fit all — and how will you know what makes money until you try it? Plenty of non-intuitive ideas (like free-to-play MMOs) have proven to be big moneymakers. We are in a period of transition which means a lot of experimenting should be happening and must be encouraged.
Just because some job-seekers are desperate enough to give up their social networking login information doesn’t mean that employers should ever ask for it. But it also doesn’t mean that we immediately need a new law. If you don’t care about your personal information and you want to work for a place that violates privacy so cavalierly: by all means, give ‘er.
Just because innovation happens regardless, doesn’t mean the current patent system isn’t a huge hindrance. The cost of patents, even ones that are non-obvious but trivial, is that people waste effort solving the same problem over and over. There’s also the very real issue of forcing proprietary (non-standard) products to market. Imagine if all the World-Wide Web and Internet standards had been patented instead of being developed via RFC.
And finally, in the article that saddened me the most and one that sickened me (do anti-favorites count?): just because some people are despicable does not mean the law should be twisted to punish them an extra amount. So in the first case, as sad as a suicide is, and as much as jerks and bullies make life hard for everyone, we have to be careful about pulling out a bigger stick than is necessary because of our emotional response to the tragedy. In the second case, we can’t start putting people in jail for being fascinated by horrible things.
Re: "feelings" crimes, feminization of society, & its weaponization
It's not surprising that Canada, without constitutional guarantees on free speech, has been easier than the US for far-left "social justice" activists to bend to their will. Have a gander at the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. We have a right called: Freedom of Expression. That is supposed to encompass more than speech alone. Having said that, SJW folks are a problem in both countries.
The whole thing started with Slater himself. He was the one that first explained how amazing it was that the monkey spontaneously picked up the camera and took the picture all on its own. Slater later tried to shift the description of the event as having been "orchestrated" by him. I view the whole legal kerfuffle as a strange "he said/he said" argument with himself. On the other hand, I haven't followed all the permutations of the details over the entire epic saga.
I interpret Chen's comments differently. I don't believe he is irresponsibly offering to hack his company's encryption. It seems to me he is trying to say that he could be compelled by a court order and would still probably not be able to hack Blackberry's encryption.
If we recall the way it played out with Apple: they refused, then the FBI said they had found a way to hack the encryption anyway.
Not sure if my interpretation is correct. But if it is, which company's encryption seems more secure?
Extra word?
she's terrible on basically every issue we care about her
Do you need a semi-colon between "issue" and "we" to show sympathy for Blackburn? Or remove "her" to show distaste? I suspect the latter. Hehehe.
I keep calling him Sean Spencer too, which made me notice the name in the first sentence of the post.
As the copyright regime approaches the infinite, artistic output will approach zero.
Only the very brave or the very committed will contribute to culture.
I hope it is not BestNetTech readers who are attacking the Twitter users quoted in this article. They were merely livetweeting the conference and reporting what the speaker was saying. They are trying to emphasize now that they DON'T agree with Purdy's stance.
Re: Re: Re:
Mike's utopian vision?
It is clear that revenue generation once you embrace digital distribution and the age of the Internet requires a multi-pronged approach and further experimentation.
They key thing you always seem to miss is that simply fighting against the rising tide is a losing strategy. You criticize Mike as if he actually advocates throwing out all rules and letting chaos reign. He has never said that and your continued obtuseness is so very frustrating. Most of the solutions I have seen proposed on BestNetTech are nuanced with the unique parameters associated with the particular situation.
Re: Re: Why is this idiot still in his position?
It is also because trust is built (or re-built) when people admit they were wrong.
As you say, there are limits, but I really like to see people, especially politicians, able to admit mistakes, truly learn from them, and not repeat them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Yes, they will.
But truly, which side is greedier? The working people who get money for work done in their lifetimes and infringe copyright along the way? Or the corporations who appropriate work from the public domain or a starving artist and then sit back and gather an ever-growing pool of income for an ever-longer period of time?
To paraphrase a recent political wag: In the current IP maximalist regime, the rising tide raises only a few boats, and all of those boats are yachts.
"It's a finger in a coat pocket -- something that only looks slightly dangerous/damning when hidden, but completely ridiculous when out in the open."
I must say, if I found a finger in my coat pocket, I would find that extremely scary. I would probably lash out in anger at the very first despot who crossed my path.
Re: Re: Re: Lawa laws laws
After all, the phrase they use is in the passive voice, as in "may be recorded" as opposed to "we may record". That grammatical construction leaves ambiguity as to who is performing the action.
Re: Re: Re:
I am not a lawyer but wouldn't all parties consent be achieved if you go past the "this call may be recorded for training and quality control purposes"... you've agreed and they've said they may be recording it. If you ALSO record it, shouldn't that be cool?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's business-ism!
LOL. True.
Net neutrality is a form of anti-discrimination policy. But the theory is that the transport of data should be separate from the production and consumption of data.
The average person's bandwidth use will presumably shift on T-Mobile, given the lifting of this restriction. They have just "opened the floodgate" for music streaming. Granted, if it is a tiny percentage and it doubles or triples, there may be no issue. But the overriding point is that I assume people who stream music will now do so to the point where they exceed what was once a capped amount -- otherwise what's the appeal of this offering?
Re: Utility
I just realized I said "over the wires" when we're talking about T-Mobile wireless. Trust me, it was just a figure of speech. :-)
Re: Re: Re:
"(I don't know of a major streaming service not already whitelisted)"
Irrelevant. Net neutrality comes into play when music streaming is treated preferentially over other kinds of data. That point is missing in most of the discussion I have seen. The argument against "Music Freedom" is not related to one existing music streaming service getting a leg up on another existing music streaming service, but new and innovative services that deliver data in as-yet unknown ways being discriminated against.
I'd also like to remind people how this "Music Freedom" thing kind of proves that data caps are bogus.
Utility
ISPs own infrastructure that make them essentially a monopoly in a particular area. "Duopoly" is a term often used. In any case, consumers usually don't have much choice about who delivers water, gas, sewer, electricity, and data to their homes. Many people don't believe that internet provision is a utility. Apparently JohnG is one of them. The NFL is not a utility, thus the examples are similar enough for him. I personally believe ISPs ARE equivalent to utilities but that REAL competition would still make net neutrality rules unnecessary. However, that competition does not exist and therefore we must have a level playing field for ALL data travelling over the wires.
I notice that this issue has sidetracked to music streaming specifically... and how it's not a problem because it is "positive discrimination", but now is the time to hammer home the idea of what net neutrality really means.
Seriously?
It is very nice that the authorities had a proper search warrant. But look at the suspected offense: "Accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes". Is that even a thing? Don't they have anything like AshleyMadison in New Zealand?
How could anyone put that on a search warrant with a straight face?
Re: Re:
Sadly, the massive breeches at Target and other retail chains in the last several years are actually related to the obesity problem.
I don't understand how "Based on a true story" adds value to a television show or movie. Fargo completely destroyed that idea by having such a statement at the beginning of each episode when it is clear the show is pure fiction.
In Scorpion (the TV show) the jet's ethernet connection to the laptop in the Ferrari was crazy and illogical but it was just the most obvious example of how they're going for a "cartoon" reality level. I won't take it seriously, but I can still enjoy it.
The bogus claims about real life accomplishments though... those are not enjoyable at all, even though they are a complete joke.